That being said, what I’m not interested in as my sole aim is to be maximally effective at doing good. I’m more interested in expressing my values in as large and impactful a way as possible—and in allowing others to do the same. This happens to coincide with doing lots and lots f good, but it definitely doesn’t mean that I would begin to sacrifice my other values (eg fun, peace, expression) to maximize good.
It’s interesting to ask to what extent this is true of everyone—I think we’ve discussed this before Matt.
Your version and phrasing of what you’re interested in is particular to you, but we could broaden the question out to ask how far people have gone a long way moving away from having primarily self-centred drives which overwhelm others when significant self-sacrifice is on the table. I think some people have gone a long way moving away from that, but I’m sceptical that any single human being goes the full distance. Most EAs plausibly don’t make any significant self-sacrifices if measured in terms of their happiness significantly dipping.* The people I know who have gone the furthest may be Joey and Kate Savoie, with whom I’ve talked about these issues a lot.
* Which doesn’t mean they haven’t done a lot of good! If people can donate 5% or 10% or 20% of their income without becoming significantly less happy then that’s great, and convincing people to do that is a low hanging fruit that we should prioritise, rather than focusing our energies on then squeezing out extra sacrifices that start to really eat into their happiness. The good consequences of people donating are what we really care about after all, not the level of sacrifice they themselves are making.
I’ve been looking for this all my life without even knowing it. (Well, at least for half a year.)