This is interesting and I broadly agree with you (though I think Habryka’s comment is important and right). On point 2, I’d want us to think very hard before adopting these as principles. It’s not obvious to me that non-violence is always the correct option — e.g. in World War 2 I think violence against the Nazis was a moral course of action.
As EA becomes increasingly involved in campaigning for states to act one way or another, a blanket non-violence policy could meaningfully and harmfully constrain us. (You could amend the clause to be “no non-state-sanctioned violence” but even then you’re in difficult territory — were the French resistance wrong to take up arms?)
I think there are similar issues with the honesty clause, too — it just isn’t the case that being honest is always the moral course of action (e.g. the lying to the Nazis about Jews in your basement example).
These are of course edge cases, and I do believe that in ~99% of cases one should be honest and non-violent. But formalising that into a core value of EA is hard, and I’m not sure it’d actually do much because basically everyone agrees that e.g. honesty is important; when they’re dishonest they just think (often incorrectly!) that they’re operating in one of those edge cases.
Regarding point 2, I’d argue that both “honesty” and “non-violence” are implied by the actual text of the fourth principle on the page:
Collaborative spirit: It’s often possible to achieve more by working together, and doing this effectively requires high standards of honesty, integrity, and compassion. Effective altruism does not mean supporting ‘ends justify the means’ reasoning, but rather is about being a good citizen, while ambitiously working toward a better world.
I think this text, or something very similar, has been a part of this list since at least 2018. It directly calls out honesty as important, and I think the use of “compassion” and the discouragement of “ends justify the means” reasoning both point clearly towards “don’t do bad things to other people”, where “bad things” include (but are not limited to) violence.
Agree that non-violence and honesty aren’t always the best option, but neither is collaboration, and collaborative spirit is listed as a core value. I think “true in 99% of cases” is fine for something to be considered a core EA value.
I’d also add that I think in practice we already abide by honesty and non violence to a similar degree to which we abide by the collaborative spirit principle.
I do think honesty and non-violence should be added to the list of core principles to further promote these values within EA, but I think the case of adding these values is stronger from a “protection against negative PR if someone violates these principles” perspective.
This is interesting and I broadly agree with you (though I think Habryka’s comment is important and right). On point 2, I’d want us to think very hard before adopting these as principles. It’s not obvious to me that non-violence is always the correct option — e.g. in World War 2 I think violence against the Nazis was a moral course of action.
As EA becomes increasingly involved in campaigning for states to act one way or another, a blanket non-violence policy could meaningfully and harmfully constrain us. (You could amend the clause to be “no non-state-sanctioned violence” but even then you’re in difficult territory — were the French resistance wrong to take up arms?)
I think there are similar issues with the honesty clause, too — it just isn’t the case that being honest is always the moral course of action (e.g. the lying to the Nazis about Jews in your basement example).
These are of course edge cases, and I do believe that in ~99% of cases one should be honest and non-violent. But formalising that into a core value of EA is hard, and I’m not sure it’d actually do much because basically everyone agrees that e.g. honesty is important; when they’re dishonest they just think (often incorrectly!) that they’re operating in one of those edge cases.
Regarding point 2, I’d argue that both “honesty” and “non-violence” are implied by the actual text of the fourth principle on the page:
I think this text, or something very similar, has been a part of this list since at least 2018. It directly calls out honesty as important, and I think the use of “compassion” and the discouragement of “ends justify the means” reasoning both point clearly towards “don’t do bad things to other people”, where “bad things” include (but are not limited to) violence.
I think honestly is clearly mentioned there but don’t think non-violence specifically is implied there.
Regardless, my case is for honesty and non-violence to both be listed separately as core principles for greater emphasis.
Agree that non-violence and honesty aren’t always the best option, but neither is collaboration, and collaborative spirit is listed as a core value. I think “true in 99% of cases” is fine for something to be considered a core EA value.
I’d also add that I think in practice we already abide by honesty and non violence to a similar degree to which we abide by the collaborative spirit principle.
I do think honesty and non-violence should be added to the list of core principles to further promote these values within EA, but I think the case of adding these values is stronger from a “protection against negative PR if someone violates these principles” perspective.