Executive summary: In this exploratory series introduction, the author argues that conventional definitions of effective altruism (EA) are overly vague or persuasive, and instead proposes an anthropological account that identifies four core beliefs and nine worldview traits that unify the otherwise diverse actions and subgroups within EA.
Key points:
Mainstream EA definitions are unsatisfying because they are either tautological (“use evidence and reason to help others”) or aimed at persuasion rather than accurate description.
The concept of “EA judo” explains how EA often absorbs critiques by framing them as internal disagreements over how to do the most good, but this can mask genuine philosophical or worldview-level disagreements.
The author contends that EA reflects genuinely unusual beliefs, which explain its distinctive actions and cannot be reduced to general moral aspirations shared by everyone.
The post proposes four central beliefs of EA: impartial concern for strangers, quantitative reasoning, collaborative epistemic humility, and the conviction that ambitious good is achievable.
A set of nine worldview components—including maximizing consequentialism, moral circle expansion, a quantitative mindset, rationalist epistemics, and technocratic politics—further define EA’s internal coherence and distinguish it from other philosophies.
The series aims to provide a descriptive (not prescriptive) account of EA as a cultural phenomenon, recognizing internal diversity while identifying patterns that clarify what makes EA unique.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: In this exploratory series introduction, the author argues that conventional definitions of effective altruism (EA) are overly vague or persuasive, and instead proposes an anthropological account that identifies four core beliefs and nine worldview traits that unify the otherwise diverse actions and subgroups within EA.
Key points:
Mainstream EA definitions are unsatisfying because they are either tautological (“use evidence and reason to help others”) or aimed at persuasion rather than accurate description.
The concept of “EA judo” explains how EA often absorbs critiques by framing them as internal disagreements over how to do the most good, but this can mask genuine philosophical or worldview-level disagreements.
The author contends that EA reflects genuinely unusual beliefs, which explain its distinctive actions and cannot be reduced to general moral aspirations shared by everyone.
The post proposes four central beliefs of EA: impartial concern for strangers, quantitative reasoning, collaborative epistemic humility, and the conviction that ambitious good is achievable.
A set of nine worldview components—including maximizing consequentialism, moral circle expansion, a quantitative mindset, rationalist epistemics, and technocratic politics—further define EA’s internal coherence and distinguish it from other philosophies.
The series aims to provide a descriptive (not prescriptive) account of EA as a cultural phenomenon, recognizing internal diversity while identifying patterns that clarify what makes EA unique.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.