I am really curious what you think about altruistic motivations v. activist motivations. I know we’ve talked about it before, and I expect you have a different view.
Also, I’m unsure what you meant in the last paragraph. I think we were both saying the same thing. Maybe you missed the “n’t’?
Interesting. I watched 14 minutes of the video and I wonder if its possible to separate the two at all. Then again, the imaginary, opiate-using world seems to do that. It’s sort of like Brave New World isn’t it? Some people choose the charm of the package deal and others are content with their controlled environment. I guess you and Claire make valid points.
I actually agree with almost all your points. I agree with Jesse though. GiveWell is an integral part of EA, and GiveWell alone has been hugely beneficial simply because of how it redirected donations. Don’t you think?
Interesting, though you seem a tad pessimistic in the last paragraph. If EAs claim they are motivated by altruism and reason, wouldn’t defining EA based on that criteria, theoretically encourage participants to change or leave the movement?
So yes, I think you are right that we can agree on some actions that are altruistic, but whether we can explain WHY they are altruistic using utilitarian ethics is another matter entirely :)
Good point. I wonder if there is any value to being able to explain the WHY. Would all rational people suddenly start behaving altruistically? Maybe altruists would be even more effective if they were motivated by reason instead of personal experiences. At the least, it would bridge the divide between the E’s and the A’s in this movement. And I guess...it could be useful for MIRI.
Have you read The Giver? This is exactly the case they make. I tend to agree with the main character. I would rather have the beauty AND suffering as cause and effect than a world full of nothing but happiness. I’m not sure the latter is possible, but it also sounds incredibly depressing. Then again, the author was obviously biased when he wrote the story.
You (and the 5 people who agreed) are blowing my mind right now.
Based on the last paragraph, it sounds like you would support a world full of opiate users—provided there was a sustainable supply of opiates.
The first paragraph is what’s blowing my mind though. When I was a baby, I’m pretty sure I would have told you that a room with toys and sweets would maximize my happiness. I guess you could argue that I’d eventually find out that it would not sustain my long term happiness, but I really do think some amount of suffering ensures happiness in the future. Perhaps this is overly simple, but I’m sure you have fasted at some point (intentionally or not) and that you greatly appreciated your next meal as a result.
Lastly, you separate knowledge and feelings from suffering, but I’m not sure this can be done. My parents told me not to do X because it would hurt, but I did not learn until I experienced X firsthand.
I’m amazed that so many EAs apparently think this way. I don’t want to be mean, but I’m curious as to what altruistic actions you have taken in your life? Really looking forward to your reply.
Thanks Will. I also prefer the latter definition.
I’m hopeful that the few times I’ve heard “minimize/reduce suffering” were out of context or misconstrued (or was said by lesser-known EAs than I thought).
Thanks Julia.
I’m still not satisfied with the addition of ‘maximize happiness.’ I suspect altruism is more than even that—though the word ‘well-being’ is a step towards compromise.
I can’t speak for other EAs, but I suspect altruists generally have more in common with activists than they do with philanthropists. The former also rejects social norms and seeks to change the world, while the latter is generally accepted within their social circles because they have so much excessive wealth.
Activists are motivated to change the world based on things they dislike about it, and I suspect the same is true for (some) altruists. I am grateful to know that many EAs come from a more positive place, but this was not my experience. It sounds negative and I prefer Will’s definition, but I ended up in EA seeking to make the world more fair. This is only slightly less subjective than being concerned with the “well being” of sentient creatures, and far less appealing. Maybe you could expand on it a bit more?
Considering that you want to include typical members, I highly recommend Jorge Lugo.
1.5./6.5 = 23% difference. That is statistically significant under any reasonable assumptions.
Seems like the guideline—be honest, applies here. Using extreme representations to mislead others would have blowback. Not to mention that the “savior,” mentality it enforces is harmful to donors.
I think this is a great idea. Have you interviewed Jorge Lugo, Tom Ash, Eva Vivalt?
I’ve donated over $115,000 (all matched by various corporate foundations) 99% vegan for 5 years tutored urban youth for 2 years volunteered 2 years at a community homeless shelter secured food donations from multiple vendors for the homeless through a service organization at school: promoted food conservation, placed donation canisters in campus eateries, delivered food donations of surplus dining dollars to local food bank, planted trees, lobbied fraternities to support better charities, rented used graduation gowns, donating profits to charity, and introduced composting at a campus eatery.
I suspect that happiness and well-being are uncorrelated. Just a guess. I am biased as I believe I have grown as a result of changes which were the result of suffering. Your point is valid though—if we could control our environment would altruists seek to create an opiate-type effect on all people? I guess it’s a question that doesn’t need an answer anytime soon.