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.
The claim in your first paragraph that doing good "effectively" is an overly trivial definition is belied by the fact that your very next paragraph raises an objection to that claim: we can't do good "effectively" if there is no way to compare goods and choose the better one. If that's a controversial assumption, then defending it is not trivial!
Perhaps it's "utilitarian-ish" in that it's a conclusion utilitarians are likely to reach, but you're still a few steps away from utilitarianism whole hog, and it's the later steps where most objections to utilitarianism aplpy.
As an ethical consequentialist and supporter of EA, I agree. A lot of subconscious consequentialists/utilitarians do substantially underestimate the level of crazy among the non-consequentialist beliefs in the wild. The converses of the beliefs in your list are good examples, but there are even stronger ones. For example, it's plausible that a majority of the world's population believes it's seriously wrong to testify against your brother when you know he's committed a murder and would be at increased risk of killing again. EAs who aren't 99%+ utilitarian are probably almost all in the 80%+ range by world standards.
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.
The claim in your first paragraph that doing good "effectively" is an overly trivial definition is belied by the fact that your very next paragraph raises an objection to that claim: we can't do good "effectively" if there is no way to compare goods and choose the better one. If that's a controversial assumption, then defending it is not trivial!
Perhaps it's "utilitarian-ish" in that it's a conclusion utilitarians are likely to reach, but you're still a few steps away from utilitarianism whole hog, and it's the later steps where most objections to utilitarianism aplpy.
As an ethical consequentialist and supporter of EA, I agree. A lot of subconscious consequentialists/utilitarians do substantially underestimate the level of crazy among the non-consequentialist beliefs in the wild. The converses of the beliefs in your list are good examples, but there are even stronger ones. For example, it's plausible that a majority of the world's population believes it's seriously wrong to testify against your brother when you know he's committed a murder and would be at increased risk of killing again. EAs who aren't 99%+ utilitarian are probably almost all in the 80%+ range by world standards.
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.
Fixed