For all that EAs are consequentialists, I don’t think we should ignore wrongdoing ‘for the greater good’. We can, I hope, defend the good without giving carte blanche to the bad, even when both exist within the same person.
We certainly shouldn’t ‘ignore’ or give ‘carte blanche’ to the bad in a person, but I don’t think that necessarily means we have to cancel them.
I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be occasions where we do in fact cancel someone on account of their character, but as someone who identifies as a consequentialist EA I’ve never understood the reluctance to do something ‘for the greater good’. Clue is in the word greater?
If someone is a shitty person but having them speak will in expectation lead to greater benefit than harm it seems to me we should let them speak. If it is the case that expected harm exceeds expected benefit then of course let’s cancel, but let’s continue to do these (rough) EV calculation on a case by case basis—this is a strength of the EA community.
We certainly shouldn’t ‘ignore’ or give ‘carte blanche’ to the bad in a person, but I don’t think that necessarily means we have to cancel them.
I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be occasions where we do in fact cancel someone on account of their character, but as someone who identifies as a consequentialist EA I’ve never understood the reluctance to do something ‘for the greater good’. Clue is in the word greater?
If someone is a shitty person but having them speak will in expectation lead to greater benefit than harm it seems to me we should let them speak. If it is the case that expected harm exceeds expected benefit then of course let’s cancel, but let’s continue to do these (rough) EV calculation on a case by case basis—this is a strength of the EA community.