The evolutionary arguments against the plausible of altruism as a construct in and of itself are probably the greatest existential threat to the effective altruism movement. That is, the implication that it is inherently disingenuine. This juxtaposition of care-harm and sanctity-degradation moral foundations are quite simply a rare mix in the human population based on personal observation and inference.
Those evolutionary arguments seem like not understanding the cognitive-evolutionary boundary. If you go with the “evolution is about survival and reproduction, so besides sex and murder everything else is a hypocrisy”, you explain away altruism, but at the same time you explain away almost everything else. The argument seems sane only when it is used selectively.
The evolutionary arguments against the plausible of altruism as a construct in and of itself are probably the greatest existential threat to the effective altruism movement. That is, the implication that it is inherently disingenuine. This juxtaposition of care-harm and sanctity-degradation moral foundations are quite simply a rare mix in the human population based on personal observation and inference.
Those evolutionary arguments seem like not understanding the cognitive-evolutionary boundary. If you go with the “evolution is about survival and reproduction, so besides sex and murder everything else is a hypocrisy”, you explain away altruism, but at the same time you explain away almost everything else. The argument seems sane only when it is used selectively.