These are all composites—I’m not giving these exact speeches, but I might borrow different examples at different times to use in conversations.
When used in context, with the specific people I think are likely to respond best, bits and pieces of these frames been fairly effective; something like 20 people I’ve introduced to this have gone on to donate some amount of money to an EA-approved charity.
The idea of using “different moral perspectives” is specifically to convince as wide a range of people as possible. Too many common EA arguments assume that everyone is consequentialist, deep down. But you do have to match the perspective to the person—otherwise, the conversation can certainly backfire!
These are all composites—I’m not giving these exact speeches, but I might borrow different examples at different times to use in conversations.
When used in context, with the specific people I think are likely to respond best, bits and pieces of these frames been fairly effective; something like 20 people I’ve introduced to this have gone on to donate some amount of money to an EA-approved charity.
The idea of using “different moral perspectives” is specifically to convince as wide a range of people as possible. Too many common EA arguments assume that everyone is consequentialist, deep down. But you do have to match the perspective to the person—otherwise, the conversation can certainly backfire!