idea21

Karma: −7

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

idea21 20 Nov 2025 10:21 UTC
2 points
1 ∶ 0
on: On Love, Rationalization, Flourishing, and Moral Circle Expansion
Expanding the moral circle is only possible by developing empathetic awareness in the broadest possible social sphere, and the problem with prioritizing animal welfare over human welfare is that it could jeopardize this process of awareness. Many people may interpret an interest in animal welfare as a manifestation of misanthropy: humanity is hateful, that’s why I love non-human animals.
The expansion of the moral circle is a consequence of a process of moral evolution. Fostering this process of moral evolution should be the priority.
Altruism is merely the economic manifestation of moral improvement, which actually takes place at a deeper level of the individual’s psychology, the source of behavior. Moral improvement implies, above all, controlling aggression and expanding empathy and benevolence.
If this moral improvement manifests in one million more individuals, it will almost certainly turn them all into vegans and opponents of animal mistreatment… although they may not make any financial donations to anti-animal cruelty organizations because they will consider the fight against human suffering to be a priority. However, they will indirectly contribute much more to animal welfare than five or ten thousand animal welfare activists (and financial contributors) whose capacity to drive moral evolution will be much lower, if only because numerically they will be much fewer.
Of course, this viewpoint will only be shared by those who believe we can actively promote moral evolution. In this forum, the discussion tends to focus on maximizing the benefits of existing altruistic action (a consequence of previous moral evolution) rather than developing strategies to increase the number of individuals motivated to act altruistically (promoting moral evolution).

idea21 17 Nov 2025 9:36 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Altruism as a Virtue
Excellent essay. It’s unusual to find a psychological interpretation of altruistic behavior in this forum dedicated to altruism. Altruism is a pattern of behavior conditioned by individual motivation.
Since the EA community is aligned with utilitarianism, it is clear that the fundamental question would be how to increase the number of altruistic agents.
There seem to be situations or conditions in which people are more likely to behave altruistically.
and
Role modeling is a form of social pressure that may help to develop altruists. People are more likely to volunteer (for instance, to join a blood drive) if they see volunteering modeled for them
An important motivator for altruistic acts are self-generated internal rewards (...) For example, people feel satisfied by meeting goals (...) You can take satisfaction at becoming the sort of person you admire (...) You can empathically adopt some of the relief felt by those you help.
To build the virtue of altruism, altruism needs to be part of your character. Your character is composed of the sorts of choices you habitually make.
My objection to your general approach is that you ignore what appears to be a process of moral evolution that has led to an increase in the number of individuals interested in altruistic behavior. The very existence of the EA community seems to be evidence that this evolution is taking place: it would be the first social movement based strictly and rationally on the development of a prosocial behavioral trait. This does not happen by free will (in reality, nothing happens in human beings by free will) but as a consequence of cultural conditioning that is taking place in today’s world.
Thus, simply listing individual approaches that promote altruistic behavior is impractical, among other things because it ignores the social nature of human existence. If, for example, you believe in a lifestyle based on family happiness, you are unlikely to practice much altruism, since your family will always be your priority. Conversely, organizing a lifestyle based on altruistic behavior (something for which there are certain historical precedents) could greatly increase the number of motivations for altruistic behavior.
In any case, as utilitarians, what matters are the results: does a purely individualistic view of altruistic motivation seem promising from the point of view of increasing altruistic action? It doesn’t seem so.
The empirical evidence suggests that altruism correlates with human flourishing on several dimensions.
So a lifestyle based on altruism is not far-fetched.
Modeling altruism as something that is self-rewarding can encourage altruism in others (especially people who have been discouraged by a joylessly puritanical idea of altruism)
Here’s the mistake: why have puritan (or “renunciant”) movements existed historically if they are so discouraging? What is the concept of “joy” for each individual in their personal and social circumstances?
The answer is that they (“puritans”) have always been discouraging for the majority of people living a conventional lifestyle. But our current lifestyle (in the “enlightened West”… so to speak) is already discouraging for the conventional lifestyle in Afghanistan, for example.
A “puritan” lifestyle can, however, be very attractive to a significant minority. And how do cultural changes occur, if not from within minorities?
The idea of developing a lifestyle based on altruism is, moreover, compatible with the hope that individual motivations for altruistic behavior will develop. From a cost-benefit perspective, debating the issue and undertaking initiatives related to the possibility of developing a “Puritan community” centered on altruistic action is enormously profitable (it costs nothing).
In the last five years, the signatories of the GWWC Pledge have grown from five thousand to ten thousand. At this rate, it will take a century to change the world (of course, no one knows if there will be an exponential increase in the short term). In contrast, we have precedents of social movements based on benevolence and altruism that experienced almost explosive growth. Of course, they also quickly died out, and of course, they were not equivalent to social movements based on rational and enlightened principles. Perhaps the time has finally come to take the remaining steps.
Any inquiry into altruistic motivation is enlightening not only about this phenomenon of human behavior, but also about the human condition itself, in which antisocial and prosocial behaviors coexist in a conflict that has marked the evolution of the civilizational phenomenon itself.
Thanks for your view.

idea21 14 Nov 2025 21:20 UTC
5 points
0 ∶ 1
on: If wild animal welfare is intractable, everything is intractable.
One possible solution is to consider that the human potential to develop both technology (the capacity to intervene in any material environment) and altruistic motivation is practically unlimited, meaning it would only be a matter of time before no area of action remains untouched by human intervention aimed at reducing suffering.
If we act from this premise, our priority must always be the development of altruistic motivation, something that requires cultural changes that can begin now.

idea21 12 Nov 2025 23:01 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: James Brobin’s comment on: Effective Altruists Should Promote Frugality More
I don’t think there’s much data yet on how a person motivated to act altruistically can have their material sacrifices and lifestyle changes (frugality, dedication, commitment) compensated with non-material emotional benefits. But there have been quite a few comments on the book “Strangers Drowning” in this forum.

idea21 12 Nov 2025 19:06 UTC
7 points
2 ∶ 0
on: Effective Altruists Should Promote Frugality More
There are some historical examples of altruistic behavior (famous cases like Tolstoy and Gandhi) that show that, in the right context, many people find in frugality and in accounting for charitable works a certain psychological satisfaction comparable to that which others find in the so-called “virtue of thrift” and in the enjoyment of their possessions. It might be worthwhile to explore these kinds of social contexts and emotional rewards. There are many paths to happiness.

idea21 10 Nov 2025 21:34 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
on: Moral Self-Indulgence
The problem arises when utilitarianism isn’t utilitarian enough. Ethics based on principles and a cultural conception of “virtue,” which in its effects doesn’t necessarily contradict utilitarianism, can promote cultural change by increasing altruistic action and transforming the behavior of large numbers of people. (Obviously, I’m not referring to a conventional ethics of principles and virtue, but to a conception of human relations based on benevolence, which is only impossible if we do nothing to try to achieve it.)
Promoting the well-being of shrimp and long-term projects for a future humanity ten thousand years from now might have its logic from a utilitarian point of view… but it’s unlikely that these are altruistic projects capable of promoting cultural change. And if there’s no cultural change in the sense of laying the foundations for a humanity that makes altruistic action its main economic activity… very little good will be done in consequentialist terms. The consequentialist may then experience their own case of self-indulgence.
prioritizing expressive concerns and emotional comfort over genuine concern for how people’s lives are concretely affected

idea21 5 Nov 2025 17:23 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
on: Choose your afterlife: a hedonist’s guide to religion and heavens
I remember enjoying reading the book “After Lives” byJohn Casey, about different conceptions of the afterlife. Obviously, the only possibility of living eternally would be some kind of “biological uploading” carried out across time by a future altruistic civilization, something that seems highly improbable to us today (but which would trump Pascal’s wager, by the way).
In any case, these fantasies are above all revealing of the culture of each era. Why did the Egyptians believe in the afterlife and not the Babylonians? Many consider that this belief in divine benevolence implied a certain progression in earthly benevolence.

idea21 5 Nov 2025 16:00 UTC
1 point
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: titotal’s comment on: Disciplined iconoclasm
You understand that “academic knowledge” encompasses basically all of science, right?
Obviously, I was not referring to the empirical sciences, but, as is clear from the context, to the social sciences, which have a certain capacity to influence moral culture.
You have the impression that the work of academic professionals is rigorously focused on the truth. I think that there are some self-evident truths about social progress that are not currently being addressed in academia.
I don’t think that EA is a complete ideology today, but its foundation is based on a great novelty: conceiving social change from a trait of human behavior (altruism).