idea21

• idea21 9 Aug 2026 18:40 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Mu­tual Altru­ism Con­di­tioned by Eco­nomic Priority

  Effective altruism asks how limited resources can be used to produce as much good as possible. My question is about the environment in which those resources and motivations are generated in the first place. If a person repeatedly gives time, money or effort to create value for others, can a system make that behavior economically sustainable so that the person can continue doing it?

  It’s obvious that many of the motivations behind people investing their effort in generating economic value—money—have nothing to do with receiving economic goods in return—money.

  Encouraging altruistic motivation consists of generating emotional benefits in exchange for economic ones. Apparently, the current EA movement seems content with the proven emotional gratification that altruistic donation provides to the donor. This gratification certainly exists… but it seems clear that, at this point, it is entirely insufficient and, therefore, dooms the entire movement to failure.

  In a family or a small community, people know who contributes. Reputation is embodied in memory and repeated contact

  Personally, I doubt that perfecting the reputational model (“indirect reciprocity”) using technology is the solution to encouraging altruism. My doubt stems from the fact that, psychologically, the donor will be conditioned by their economic self-interest and won’t exercise their prosocial behavioral skills (such as empathy, compassion, affection, and care) as much. But, in any case, hvoyander has made a creative contribution regarding the fundamental problem of altruism… which is how to generate more altruists (something very rare to see in this forum).

  In my opinion, the best way to generate more altruists is to connect the phenomenon of economic altruism with the development of the psychological qualities most characteristic of prosocial affective behavior, which can be strongly motivating for many temperaments. A subculture of benevolence can be attractive to people interested in strengthening their affective and extremely trusting relationships within a context of enlightened rationality. We need more “saints” and fewer “ordinary people.” More ethics of virtue and less utilitarianism.

  https://​​forum.effectivealtruism.org/​​posts/​​uaGR6yhpEmdtgncuZ/​​altruism-and-minority-influence

  https://​​forum.effectivealtruism.org/​​posts/​​7tjbCRCb6FSdCKgyP/​​leo-tolstoy-s-philosophy-altruism-and-non-violence

What are the goals of the EA com­mu­nity?

• idea21 28 May 2026 9:07 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: The Mo­ral The­ory of Everything

  The problem with all wefare estimates is their inherent imprecision, as well as the oversight that in any altruistic project—such as that of the EA community—the key factor is the motivation of the altruistic agents. Calculating any objectively altruistic action means ignoring the subjective element of the altruistic act.

  The only effective calculation is one that prioritizes the motivation of the altruistic agents. Appealing to mere altruistic principles based on a cognitive understanding is insufficient. Hence the twenty-year failure of the EA community in its unsuccessful attempt to rationalize altruism. Altruism cannot be rationalized outside of a cultural conception of the altruistic agent’s motivation.

  
  One contribution in this regard is that altruism can be cultivated as a necessary element within the development of a culture of benevolence, which might be sufficiently motivating to generate altruistic acts consistent with conventional welfare estimates.

  But this is just one contribution among many others that could be made.

• idea21 19 Apr 2026 15:53 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Effec­tive Altru­ism and Rad­i­cal Trivialisms

  When an obvious principle demands a behavioral change that you do not carry out, you are failing to live up to your principles.

  The point at which “effective altruism” transcends the triviality of choosing “more over less” is precisely when principles depend on behavior. A “behavioral ideology” is something that has not yet come into being.

  However, it becomes even more trivial when the principles of human behavior are detached from the idea of ​​virtue or lifestyle.

  How am I going to maintain resolve to do good, to avoid life style creep, to reduce animal product consumption, etc., if I don’t have other people to show me the way, to encourage me, and to mentor?

  It’s trivial to worry about how to spend resources on certain charities when one doesn’t have them.

  The non-trivial consequence of an ideology centered on prosocial behavior patterns (financial charity, but not only) is the belief that the primary effort of such a movement should be to increase the number of people practicing charity. This requires effective psychological strategies that make a lifestyle based on cultivating benevolence (of which charity is a necessary consequence) appealing. For example, one hundred years ago, the founders of “Alcoholics Anonymous” had a very good idea.

A thought ex­per­i­ment re­gard­ing altruism

• idea21 9 Mar 2026 10:24 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Co­op­er­a­tion Without Kind­ness or Strategy

  What you mean is that there is a psychological mechanism—a consequence in your “thought experiment” of the monastic practice—that internalizes an “identification” between two members of the same group. What I don’t see is a sharp distinction between “identification” between members of the same group and “loyalty” within the group.

  
  This phenomenon of “identification,” when differentiated from “affect,” requires a peculiar psychological construct. It occurs to me that it could be an abstraction of affection, which doesn’t require personal proximity between those who share an ideology of affection, if such an ideology could exist. I find it difficult to believe that an “identification” not equivalent to “loyalty” can occur without an affective element (one can be loyal to communism or to Christianity, but I cannot identify with Jesus, whom I love, in the same way as with the historical figure of Lenin).

  
  We can love all our fellow human beings within an affective ideology (our faith is limited to believing in a life governed by patterns of affective and caring behavior), but at the same time, we only personally identify with those who share this belief in universal love.

  Is it possible to construct such an ideology? It has never been done, but some Christians have claimed that “God is Love”… which some might interpret as meaning that God does not exist, but that Love does exist as an affective abstraction, which can be symbolized and therefore also psychologically internalized within a context of shared belief (ideology).

  
  So far, no one has undertaken such an experiment. Believing in “Love” (or its equivalent behavioral pattern of benevolence) would imply believing in a personal learning process to achieve a model of behavior at all levels (at the economic level, this would involve altruistic behavior).

Fac­ing Ex­is­ten­tial Risk is not altruistic

• idea21 22 Jan 2026 21:09 UTC

  2 points

  0 ∶ 3

  on: If EA ruled the world, ca­reer ad­vi­sors would tell some peo­ple to work for the postal service

  From a utilitarian perspective, the priority of altruistic action should be that which can simultaneously reduce immediate human suffering and expand altruistic behavior (proselytizing a lifestyle, since the basis of altruism is altruistic motivation).

• idea21 22 Jan 2026 9:54 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Mihir Abbineni’s comment on: Na­tion­al­ism in the con­text of ex­pand­ing moral cir­cles

  Human instincts don’t arise from randomness however, they are designed by evolution. Therefore I think the answer in altruism doesn’t rely on negating humanity but rather balancing it with our conscious free will

  Sigmund Freud wrote that “civilization is the control of instinct.” If we adhere simply to genetic evolution, Homo sapiens would still be living a prehistoric existence as a “hunter-gatherer.” But Homo sapiens is a “cultural animal.” In a sense, it is the only cultural animal, since it makes cumulative use of cultural creativity throughout its historical trajectory.

  Tribalism, supernaturalism, male dominance, and, above all, aggression, are human instincts that the civilizing process also tries to control in an evolutionary way, but not biologically, rather culturally.

  The idea of ​​a civilization in which altruism would be the general expression of economic relations may seem as unthinkable to us today as commercial air travel might have seemed to the wise Aristotle. But it is perfectly logical and in accordance with human nature as a cultural being.

  An ideological movement based on improving behavior in the sense of benevolence and altruism (the conditions that give rise to human relationships of maximum trust and consequent effective cooperation) could be an extraordinary opportunity for social progress.

• idea21 21 Jan 2026 9:42 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 1

  on: Na­tion­al­ism in the con­text of ex­pand­ing moral cir­cles

  It is understandable that nationalism is a response to discrimination and aggression against minorities defined by ethnic markers. But it is a mistake to assume the aggressor’s premise that such ethnic markers are humanly significant.

  
  Tribalism or ingroupism is a human instinct. Any human group tends to create bonds based on arbitrary markers—practically anything can become “ethnic”—to defend the in-group from the perceived threat of the outside group. This has been observed even in the simplest societies.

  An altruistic conception of human life must eliminate all forms of ingroupism, as it subordinates the individual (human) to the group (non-human). Nationalism, patriotism, ingroupism… no one should be deceived by the supposed goodness of “bonds of solidarity”… it is a form of superstition, necessarily aggressive and irrational.

  It is a shame that in recent decades many prestigious authors have spoken out against the irrationalism of beliefs in the supernatural, but almost none against groupistic tendencies that are responsible for far more wars and violence than religion.

Can al­tru­ism be pa­tient?

• idea21 31 Dec 2025 10:11 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: The Inescapa­bil­ity of Altruism

  caring about others’ well-being. It shifts your attention away from anxious self-monitoring and toward concrete tasks: helping, building. That alone is often a relief. When you are absorbed in a task and have forgotten yourself, that’s often when the most profound happiness arises

  It seems fairly well established that, for example, caring for pets provides a certain solace. However, altruism toward human beings in general is much more complex because it depends on cultural conditioning.

  Caring for pets (and, of course, one’s own offspring) provides well-being on a universal level, in all cultures. But extrapolating this fact to a lifestyle based on altruism is of little help when facing the reality of the human problem. This is an element to consider. If one relies on Buddhist wisdom, one must consider the fact that this wisdom evolved because a viable altruistic formulation did not exist in the traditional lifestyle until then.

• idea21 21 Dec 2025 0:25 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: War­time ethics is weird

  Murder is rightly illegal, and conscription should be illegal for the same reasons.

  For something to be “illegal,” it must be sanctioned by coercive law. Therefore, to declare conscription “illegal,” you would need executive authority. You might even need to raise your own army if a political conflict arises between supporters and opponents of your legislative initiative.

  The situation would be different if you were a pacifist (non-violent). In that case, you would have to face the consequences in all areas.

• idea21 18 Dec 2025 21:24 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Build­ing the Fortress: Refram­ing Suffer­ing-Fo­cused Ethics

  Even to those otherwise sympathetic to SFE, its orientation toward subtraction can be demotivating.

  It would not be wrong to assert that the entire process of civilization consists of controlling innate human aggression and, therefore, that all moral efforts to ultimately improve society have a subtractive structure: do not aggress, do not harm, do not tolerate suffering.

  Compassionate religious philosophies have thus attempted to develop “positive” abstract concepts capable of emotionally engaging the believer in an ideology of altruism and benevolence. The best known in the West are those of Christianity, such as “Love” (“Agape”), “Charity,” “Holy Spirit,” “Grace”… These terms undergo a process of symbolization, can be psychologically internalized, and act as motivating and guiding forces. Traditionally, they have been associated with the “numinous” or supernatural.

  For those interested today in an effective reformulation of altruism as an ideology, it would be very useful to analyze these past strategies and adapt them to our current knowledge and experience of human behavior and its potential for social improvement.

Sys­temic Change

• idea21 10 Dec 2025 16:49 UTC

  1 point

  1 ∶ 0

  on: Solv­ing the Trol­ley Prob­lem and Other Mo­ral Dilemmas

  Our moral imagination likes vivid, dramatic acts of sacrifice better than slow, structural work.

  Even considering this reality, ethical dilemmas arise because we don’t always have time to change the circumstances of the environment (slow, structural work) in which they occur.

  However, I venture to suggest that there is a very positive point in your perspective: the observation regarding “drama.” Cultural shifts related to ethics have much to do with the emotional impact of events with moral content. This is the basis, for example, of the historical relevance of the evolution of mythologies.

  If we consider moral evolution to be the fundamental factor in the advancement of civilizations (less aggression, more benevolence, more rationality, and more efficient cooperation), when faced with many ethical dilemmas, we must lean toward the capacity to influence moral evolution. A dilemma that predates the trolley problem is that of torture: if I don’t torture the al-Qaeda terrorist, I won’t be able to eliminate Bin Laden, and he will commit mass crimes again. But torture is wrong (moral evolution).

  I believe the EA movement is part of a civilizational moral evolution. Therefore, it should always prioritize decisions that promote moral evolution as a long-term goal.

• idea21 8 Dec 2025 23:08 UTC

  1 point

  0 ∶ 3

  on: Why I Like Effec­tive Altru­ism More Than Socialism

  EA states, through its published texts (books, websites, and others), that it is a social movement with the potential to change the world. The principle of promoting rational, coherent, and systemic altruistic action may imply this, because altruism as an economic system can encompass all human social activity.

  In that case, it would indeed contradict any other social movement, including socialism and Christianity. Socialism is an ideology that promotes a political system (coercive authorities) that establishes economic equality and social justice. The goal of socially just economic equality guaranteed by law implies that the militant socialist’s primary consequence of their ideological commitment will be to facilitate this political regime. Doing the greatest good for the greatest number will equate to facilitating the success of the socialist political system (a long-term cause). Logically, one should dedicate 10% of their income not to fighting malaria, but to political actions that favor socialism. In fact, the EA movement already receives a lot of criticism from those who support various political advocacy movements (for example; against racism, in favor of animal rights, in favor of environmental legislation).

• idea21 24 Nov 2025 4:59 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  on: Grow­ing Effec­tive Altru­ism

  It is always appreciated when someone realizes that EA’s main problem with respect to utilitarianism is that with little more than ten thousand adherents, there is little that can be done regarding the complex and ambitious goals set out in the Forum.

  One suggestion for proselytism would be to secure the support of a highly influential public figure. I’ve mentioned the extraordinary success of the Tolstoyan movement in its time. Its doctrine of peace and love inspired many to give away their possessions to charity. Its success stemmed from the fact that, between 1890 and 1910, Tolstoy was the most famous living writer in the world. In 1910, his long and beautiful life came to an end, and the movement dissolved.

  Today, there are several internationally renowned writers, enjoying both popular and critical acclaim, who have demonstrated a strong interest in moral, humanitarian, and even outright altruistic issues in their works. If one of them were to actively advocate for the ideal of effective altruism, it would be an enormous help.

Cul­tural Longtermism

• idea21 20 Nov 2025 15:31 UTC

  3 points

  0 ∶ 0

  in reply to: Zlatko Jovičić’s comment on: On Love, Ra­tion­al­iza­tion, Flour­ish­ing, and Mo­ral Cir­cle Expansion

  Prioritizing humans over non-humans is yet another ethical dilemma, among many others. If you cure one AIDS patient, you might be condemning five malaria patients to death.

  I sometimes feel like I’m not virtuous enough

  Virtue is something that has to do with emotions and beliefs. In everyday life, many people go to therapy to help them feel better and be consistent with their beliefs. That is, we act in accordance with our nature, recognizing our aspirations, our weaknesses, and our needs.

  If our belief is altruism, we should act similarly, developing strategies to improve our behavior in the direction of altruistic action. Ideally, altruistic action would provide us with immediate emotional rewards (which would have a “zero economic cost”), but this doesn’t seem very attainable in daily life.

  It occurs to me, based on some historical precedents, that altruism can be necessarily associated with behaviors of “moral excellence,” which are those that make an individual worthy of the utmost trust. A human environment of maximum trust can be emotionally attractive as a personal aspiration for many individuals… even if this requires making certain unavoidable sacrifices.