Comment by ineptech | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ineptech | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Religious devotion? No offense, but that sounds like more straw. I think there's an awful lot of people who read about EA, visit some charity ranking websites, rethink their giving, and then don't go on to start a blog.

I don't think EA is utilitarian. Or at least, not in any way that requires objective moral realism. EA doesn't say, "moral goodness is quantifiable and I can prove on graph paper that one life saved from malaria is equivalent to 137 meals delivered to hungry people." It says, "I don't know what goodness is or how to measure it, but I need some way to decide where to donate, so..."

In other words, EA demands that you actually think about where your money goes and whether that's the best place for it, rather than just donating to whichever charity has the most emotionally moving imagery and music in its TV commercials. Once you do that, it naturally follows that almost any system you use will give the same answer: "Sheesh, I should probably donate less to the animal shelter." And I think 99% of the hate EA gets is rooted from the fact that people like donating to their local animal shelter, but can't really justify it.

EA was definitely founded by reasonably orthodox utilitarian philosophers, like Peter Singer, Peter Unger, Toby Ord, and William MacAskill.

Formal EA organizations and conferences also have a lot of utilitarians heavily involved.

So I think it's fair to say that EA is rooted in utilitarianism, although those same utilitarians might say, for utilitarian reasons, that it's a good thing when people think carefully -- or at all! -- about how to be more effective and have a higher impact, regardless of what metaethical views (if any) those people subscribe to.

I mean, fair, but does it follow that someone who dislikes utilitarianism or feels it's disprovable must consequently dislike EA? Because that seems to be the thesis of this essay.

I guess it comes down to this: when people argue with utilitarianism, in my experience it's specifically the part about treating strangers and friends equally, i.e. the idea that it might be better to save two drowning strangers than to save one drowning friend. I don't think EA relies on that or is based on it; you can have a value system that says it's better to save your drowning friend than to save ten or a hundred drowning strangers, and still find EA valuable.

If you dispense with realism, why couldn't you embrace the animal shelter?

Just bite the bullet. Say, "I've grown disenchanted with people, they suck. I'm going to dedicate myself to improve the lives of animals instead, who are mostly blameless victims of humanity, and are much cheaper to make happy than a human".

Utilitarianism doesn't really tell you how many dogs is a human worth, so you well can decide that you value dogs very highly, and that's all that's needed to make donating to an animal shelter very rational.

That's the thing, I think you can. If everyone who donates to animal shelters felt as confident about it as you described, I don't think anyone would have a problem with EA. Certainly, no one is complaining about the idea of, between two charities who do the same thing, giving to the one who does it more effectively.

But there's a lot of complaining about the idea of comparing two different kinds of altruism. And the whole point of EA, I think, is that the fact that it's uncomfortable leads people not to do it at all, and prodding them to think about it feels like an attack.

> but can't really justify it.

That assumes a tie-breaking morality that says objectively that animal shelters aren't a good enough cause. If that's your mindset, then no wonder people who donate to animal shelters don't like you talking about EA : - )

Reply on news.ycombinator.com