Ok, I’ve watched Singer’s TED talk now, thank you for linking it. It does work as a statement of purpose, certainly. On the other hand it fails as an attempt to justify or argue for the movement’s core values; at the same time, it makes it quite clear that effective altruism is not just about “let’s be altruists effectively”. It’s got some specific values attached, more specific than can justifiably be called simply “altruism”.
I want to see, at least, some acknowledgment of that fact, and preferably, some attempt to defend those values. Singer doesn’t do this; he merely handwaves in the general direction of “empathy” and “a rational understanding of our situation” (note that he doesn’t explain what makes this particular set of values — valuing all lives equally — “rational”).
Edit: My apologies! I just looked over your post again, and noticed this line, which my brain somehow ignored at first:
I’d venture the guess its [the principle of indifference’s] popularity among rationalists is an artifact of culture or a selection effect rather than a consequence of rationality.
That (in fact, that whole paragraph) does go far toward addressing my concerns. Consider the objections in this comment at least partially withdrawn!
Ok, I’ve watched Singer’s TED talk now, thank you for linking it. It does work as a statement of purpose, certainly. On the other hand it fails as an attempt to justify or argue for the movement’s core values; at the same time, it makes it quite clear that effective altruism is not just about “let’s be altruists effectively”. It’s got some specific values attached, more specific than can justifiably be called simply “altruism”.
I want to see, at least, some acknowledgment of that fact, and preferably, some attempt to defend those values. Singer doesn’t do this; he merely handwaves in the general direction of “empathy” and “a rational understanding of our situation” (note that he doesn’t explain what makes this particular set of values — valuing all lives equally — “rational”).
Edit: My apologies! I just looked over your post again, and noticed this line, which my brain somehow ignored at first:
That (in fact, that whole paragraph) does go far toward addressing my concerns. Consider the objections in this comment at least partially withdrawn!
Apology accepted :-). (Don’t worry, I know that my post was long and that catching everything can require a lot of energy.)