This seems like a very trivial description of EA though: "You should seek to do good" because that's what "good" means and you ought to do those things you ought to do. And doing good "effectively" just seems like basic resource management.
The arguments I hear from and associate with EA typically seem to embed a bunch of other Utilitarian-ish assumptions - like we can compare different goods and choose the better one, our obligations don't depend on our relationship to the person being helped, total well being is a meaningful metric, etc.
Sorry to hear that Crook misrepresented EA. It does seem like a strange endeavor to seek something wrong- anything wrong- with people who want to help people. I have the utmost respect for Effective Altruism. One of the biggest struggles in my life (overall) has been trying to figure out what types of charitable giving are the best. I've spent a lot of money on efforts that were probably a waste. So I'm glad that there are people who believe they've found the most effective ways to help (though I might not be as sure as they are). Thanks for being a person who cares about strangers!
Do you use "utilitarianism" (sans "classical") to imply maximalism or belief in moral obligation? I tend to use "scalar consequentialism" to avoid overstatement, but Norcross (whose position I'm essentially convinced by) himself uses "scalar utilitarianism".
That source uses the EA survey from 2015, later survey show a different picture. The demographics post of the 2019 survey shows that 80% are consequentialists and 70% are utilitarian:
This is the latest data that we have since the demographic posts from the 2020 and 2022 survey don't have data on ethical systems and there was no survey in 2021.
This seems like a very trivial description of EA though: "You should seek to do good" because that's what "good" means and you ought to do those things you ought to do. And doing good "effectively" just seems like basic resource management.
The arguments I hear from and associate with EA typically seem to embed a bunch of other Utilitarian-ish assumptions - like we can compare different goods and choose the better one, our obligations don't depend on our relationship to the person being helped, total well being is a meaningful metric, etc.
Sorry to hear that Crook misrepresented EA. It does seem like a strange endeavor to seek something wrong- anything wrong- with people who want to help people. I have the utmost respect for Effective Altruism. One of the biggest struggles in my life (overall) has been trying to figure out what types of charitable giving are the best. I've spent a lot of money on efforts that were probably a waste. So I'm glad that there are people who believe they've found the most effective ways to help (though I might not be as sure as they are). Thanks for being a person who cares about strangers!
Do you use "utilitarianism" (sans "classical") to imply maximalism or belief in moral obligation? I tend to use "scalar consequentialism" to avoid overstatement, but Norcross (whose position I'm essentially convinced by) himself uses "scalar utilitarianism".
"Only about half of EAs are utilitarians"
That source uses the EA survey from 2015, later survey show a different picture. The demographics post of the 2019 survey shows that 80% are consequentialists and 70% are utilitarian:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/wtQ3XCL35uxjXpwjE/ea-survey-2019-series-community-demographics-and#Morality
This is the latest data that we have since the demographic posts from the 2020 and 2022 survey don't have data on ethical systems and there was no survey in 2021.