Here’s my response (based on ~1 minute of Googling):
He seems to have what I call a “moral purity” attitude towards morality. By this I mean, thinking of ethics as less consequentialist and more about “being a good person”.
I think such an attitude is natural, very typical and not very EA.So, e.g. living frugally might or might not be EA, but definitely makes sense if you believe we have strong charitable obligations and have a moral purity attitude towards morality.
Moving away from moral purity and giving consequentialist arguments against it are maybe one of the main insights of EA vs. Peter Singer.
A friend asked me what EAs think of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney.
Here’s my response (based on ~1 minute of Googling):
He seems to have what I call a “moral purity” attitude towards morality.
By this I mean, thinking of ethics as less consequentialist and more about “being a good person”.
I think such an attitude is natural, very typical and not very EA.So, e.g. living frugally might or might not be EA, but definitely makes sense if you believe we have strong charitable obligations and have a moral purity attitude towards morality.
Moving away from moral purity and giving consequentialist arguments against it are maybe one of the main insights of EA vs. Peter Singer.