Effective altruism is based on a form of total utilitarianism
This is not true (and incidentally is a pet peeve of mine). I know plenty of EAs who are not utilitarian EAs. Most EAs I know would dispute this (at least in conversation on the EA facebook group there appears to be a consensus that EA ≠ utilitarianism).
I am curious as to what makes you (/anyone) think this. Could you enlighten me?
I do NOT endorse effective altruism
This statement also interests me too.
What do you mean that you do not endorse EA?
Are you referring to the idea of applying reason/rationality to doing good?
Are you saying that you do not support the movement or the people in it?
Do you simply mean that advocating EA just happens to be a thing you have never done?
This is not true (and incidentally is a pet peeve of mine). I know plenty of EAs who are not utilitarian EAs. Most EAs I know would dispute this (at least in conversation on the EA facebook group there appears to be a consensus that EA ≠ utilitarianism).
Effective altruism is not the same as utilitarianism, but it is certainly based on it. How else would you call trying to maximize a numeric measure of cumulative good?
What do you mean that you do not endorse EA?
I think I’ve already responded in the parent comment.
Effective altruism is not the same as utilitarianism, but it is certainly based on it. How else would you call trying to maximize a numeric measure of cumulative good?
This is incorrect. Effective altruism is applying rationality to doing good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism).
It is not always maximizing. For example you could be EA and not believe you should ever actively cause harm (ie you would not kill one person to save 5).
It does require quantifying things, as much as making any other rational decision requires quantifying things.
I think I’ve already responded in the parent comment.
No you have not. You have expressed criticisms of things EAs do. The OP expressed lots of criticisms too but still actively endorses EA. I ask mainly because I agree with many of your criticisms, but I still actively endorse EA. And I wonder at what point on the path we differ.
It is not always maximizing. For example you could be EA and not believe you should ever actively cause harm (ie you would not kill one person to save 5). It does require quantifying things, as much as making any other rational decision requires quantifying things.
Fair enough. I think it could be said that while the philosophy behind EA is rooted in total utilitarianism, people who practice EA can further constrain it within a deontological moral system. (I suppose that this true even of people who explicitly proclaim themselves utilitarians).
No you have not. You have expressed criticisms of things EAs do. The OP expressed lots of criticisms too but still actively endorses EA. I ask mainly because I agree with many of your criticisms, but I still actively endorse EA. And I wonder at what point on the path we differ.
I wonder that too. If you agree with many of my criticisms, why do you still endorse EA?
The term “EA” is undoubtedly based on a form of total utilitarianism. Whatever the term means today, and whatever Wikipedia says (which, incidentally, weeatquince helped to write, though I can’t remember if he wrote the part he is referring to), the motivation behind the creation of the term was the need for a much more palatable and slightly broader term for total utilitarianism.
This is not true (and incidentally is a pet peeve of mine). I know plenty of EAs who are not utilitarian EAs. Most EAs I know would dispute this (at least in conversation on the EA facebook group there appears to be a consensus that EA ≠ utilitarianism).
I am curious as to what makes you (/anyone) think this. Could you enlighten me?
This statement also interests me too. What do you mean that you do not endorse EA?
Are you referring to the idea of applying reason/rationality to doing good?
Are you saying that you do not support the movement or the people in it?
Do you simply mean that advocating EA just happens to be a thing you have never done?
Are you not altruistic/ethical?
Effective altruism is not the same as utilitarianism, but it is certainly based on it. How else would you call trying to maximize a numeric measure of cumulative good?
I think I’ve already responded in the parent comment.
This is incorrect. Effective altruism is applying rationality to doing good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism). It is not always maximizing. For example you could be EA and not believe you should ever actively cause harm (ie you would not kill one person to save 5). It does require quantifying things, as much as making any other rational decision requires quantifying things.
No you have not. You have expressed criticisms of things EAs do. The OP expressed lots of criticisms too but still actively endorses EA. I ask mainly because I agree with many of your criticisms, but I still actively endorse EA. And I wonder at what point on the path we differ.
Fair enough. I think it could be said that while the philosophy behind EA is rooted in total utilitarianism, people who practice EA can further constrain it within a deontological moral system. (I suppose that this true even of people who explicitly proclaim themselves utilitarians).
I wonder that too. If you agree with many of my criticisms, why do you still endorse EA?
The term “EA” is undoubtedly based on a form of total utilitarianism. Whatever the term means today, and whatever Wikipedia says (which, incidentally, weeatquince helped to write, though I can’t remember if he wrote the part he is referring to), the motivation behind the creation of the term was the need for a much more palatable and slightly broader term for total utilitarianism.