I am researching philosophy and EA ideas after a career in finance and real estate. See my website http://jamesaitchison.co.uk
James Aitchison
Karma: 167
The Reality Mindset and the Mythology Mindset
I recommend the audio version on Joe Carlsmith Audio. For me, the reading by the author made this essay very engaging and conveyed additional meaning, with the final section very strong.
Thank you for your response, and for referencing the two papers.
You conclude that there is a degree of Easterlin Paradox—that happiness increases less with growth over time than would be expected from how happiness increases with income within a country and how it increases with income levels between countries.
To what extent do you think that the remaining Easterlin effect is due to status levels being an important aspect of happiness so we don’t benefit much if our neighbours get richer with us? Or do respondents adjust life satisfaction scales as life expectations advance with incomes over time, so that happiness improves but is not measured?
Richard—Thank you for a super post. A great statement of the view that problem cases held against utilitarianism would also be problems for any other theory that aimed to be systematic.
I don’t entirely agree that to stop systematic theorising is to stop thinking. Thinking can still be applied to making good decisions in particular cases and the balance between the particular and general principles can be debated.
I totally support your arguments in your post and your replies against neutrality on creating positive lives. I think this blog post by Joseph Carlsmith also makes the case against neutrality very well.
Thank you also for the recent series of fine articles on your blog, Good Thoughts. I would strongly recommend this to anyone interested in moral philosophy, utilitarianism and EA.
Thank you, an important one to include. It shows that you can certainly make longtermism look bad if you add together all the crazy train things that have been said. To my mind, shows the wisdom of MacAskill concentrating on presenting an inclusive and commonsensical approach to longtermism In WWOTF and his media appearances.
Any others to add to the list?
This post and reply are quite a triumph for the connectivity of the EA Forum!
What We Owe The Future Updated Media List
Thank you for telling your story.
I agree that ‘obligation’ is an optional, man-made concept. Altruism can be framed in different ways, for example as an opportunity.
It is also possible to separate the normative question of ‘What is best from a universal perspective?’ from the personal, psychological question of ‘What am I going to do?’ The individual can then put working for the general good in its place as only one amongst several personal goals.
I also found MacAskill’s discussion of ethics on the January 2018 80k podcast fascinating, so thank you for setting out the key extracts and for your analysis.
It is particularly useful to see Korsgaard’s argument against Parfit on personal identity put so clearly.
I strongly agree that metaethical starting points influence the choice of normative theories. A Kantian focus on individual agency is a possibility, to be considered with other ways of conceptualising practical reason and morality.
A link to Toby Ord’s 2008 paper The Scourge: Moral Implications of Natural Embryo Loss.
Will MacAskill Media for WWOTF—Full List
I have relished ‘The Will MacAskill Festival’ - this month’s blizzard of podcasts and articles promoting the book. You and your team should be congratulated on the consistently high quality of this extensive material, which has always been professional and informative and has often been inspiring. Up to 17 August I have found ten podcasts appearances and eleven articles which I have listed with links and my brief comments here. Well done and thank you!
Thank you for a valuable post and for the interesting links provided. I am sure you are right that much value comes from individuals pursuing their passion for EA in their own time.
My experience has been that the time available for independent intellectual or altruistic pursuits varies over a lifetime. When demands from children and career peak, it is hard, but I recommend keeping jotting down ideas, using commuting time for reading or listening and trying to stop work absorbing all your thinking capacity. Later, career changes or (as in my case) early retirement can provide slack and the opportunity to do more.
Thank you for this fine post, full of important ideas. I particularly appreciate the effort taken to explain everything clearly and to provide useful references. For context, I recommend OP’s blogpost, the seminar and Alexander Berger’s comments on your post.
I very much support your aim of trying to formalise our ends. Your post shows how many deep and important issues arise when thinking about ends, even just for global health and welfare philanthropy. It is a rare ambition to set out fundamental objectives, so OP should be praised for putting together a usable framework, and being open to improving it.
You make a striking point that it may not be valuable to save the lives of unhappy people. I hope Alexander Berger is right that most of our beneficiaries have positive lives.
You reach the modest conclusion that OP should accommodate a diversity of views about ends. This may be sensible now, but perhaps our thinking about ends will progress and converge over time. We keep going!
Worth adding that there is also a historic aspect to the Dedicate / Non-Dedicate distinction in that EA’s origins were in more of a totalising, thrifty, monkish, Dedicate approach and over time Non-Dedicates have become more significant.
Thank you for a super, clear, comprehensive and well-argued talk setting out your up to date understanding of the Easterlin paradox. Great to have the references which I have been checking out. I am pleased you went in to depth on scale shifts as I suspect that generational changes in what is meant by a good life is the biggest challenge to definitively concluding that economic growth does little for life satisfaction.
I love this post, it is so engagingly written. And the links are great, and have opened up valuable new ideas and sources for me. I strongly recommend your list of further reading and. indeed, all the links you provide.
You and your sources make the case for a number of very valuable ideas including asking for help, using social media, writing blogs, taking action, taking risk. How far to pursue each of these will obviously depend on personality and circumstances and will be a matter of balance.
I love this post, it is so engagingly written. And the links are great, and have opened up valuable new ideas and sources for me. I strongly recommend your list of further reading and. indeed, all the links you provide.
You and your sources make the case for a number of very valuable ideas including asking for help, using social media, writing blogs, taking action, taking risk. How far to pursue each of these will obviously depend on personality and circumstances and will be a matter of balance.
I find the ‘market’ analogy helpful. There is a range of possibilities from centrally lead to radically pluralistic, and your free market suggestions show how a pluralistic approach may be implemented. The market analogy highlights several ideas - some central management should be cause neutral, competition can be helpful, the culture should be open to a marketplace of ideas. There is a role for leaders, but they need to be respectful of those working towards different views of how to do good.