While not everyone is motivated by a sense that they should be doing their part (see: excited vs. obligatory altruism), I do think this is a major motivation for many people.
I’m not sure I disagree with you, though. I just don’t like the idea of “demandingness”. Though I suppose community norms and standards create a form of pseudo-demandingness, anyway.
This is a big part of where guilt-free effective altruism comes from, I think: instead of forcing yourself to give to charities sporadically when the guilt overcomes you, promise yourself that you won’t give sporadically due to guilt, and then listen to the part of you that says “but then when will I help others!?” Don’t force yourself to be an altruist — instead, commit to never forcing yourself, and then work with the part of you that protests, and become an altruist if and only if you want to help.
I think this is probably a good post for many people, but it’s not a good post for me or likely others with obligation-derived EA motivation. I participate in EA because I think it’s the right thing to do. If I didn’t, there are lots of things I’d be excited to do instead.
Nate Soares suggests dropping the idea of should in his Replacing Guilt series.
I’m not sure I disagree with you, though. I just don’t like the idea of “demandingness”. Though I suppose community norms and standards create a form of pseudo-demandingness, anyway.
Nate’s blog is down, but here’s an archived copy: https://web.archive.org/web/20151108052120/https://mindingourway.com/not-because-you-should/
Main part:
I think this is probably a good post for many people, but it’s not a good post for me or likely others with obligation-derived EA motivation. I participate in EA because I think it’s the right thing to do. If I didn’t, there are lots of things I’d be excited to do instead.
(it’s also cross-posted on LW)