Ethical systems in which rely on God(s)/Masters to dictate what is good, like commandments do, have great difficulty overcoming the Euthyphro dilemma. The dilemma asks whether moral claims are true because some authority commands them, or they are commanded because they are truly moral.
That way I understand your work here effective altruism aims to use reason and evidence to determine objective morality and then act on it. This sidesteps the Euthyphro dilemma by not basing ethics on fixed divine commands open to non-moral influences. It allows the system to self-correct.
I think this is also why non-vegans have such a negative reaction to veganism. (I am a vegan). But I've noticed people really hate it more than they hate vegetarianism, or environmentalists/conservationists. Because veganism takes such a strong stance on "eliminating animal products from your life is the ethical thing to do" which means that not doing that is from a vegan's perspective, not ethical. And people hate to be thought of as unethical, even if they disagree with someone else's ethics. Which is why a lot of people treat simply mentioning that you're vegan as a personal attack on them, even if you didn't say anything to them about their own diet and didn't pass judgement on them in any way.
As for effective altruism (which Peter Singer also supports) - I think it is a noble cause. Am I a full on effective altruist? No. Does that mean that I'm not maximally ethical? Yup. But I'm ok with that. I donate a fair bit to charity and used to donate to Givewell but I now focus more on animal advocacy/conservation causes.
I have got to say that this is a strange kind of special pleading for effective altruism that rests a tremendous amount on *claims* versus *does*. I'm not sure other ethical systems build in an allowance for a "line of retreat"; I think all ethical systems are frequently breached in practice, including effective altruism. I hate to say it but if there was a reason to dislike effective altruism, it is because it seems unusually prone to this sort of self-congratulatory "our ethical system is different" and perhaps equally prone to ignoring real-world evidence that effective altruism seems especially appealing to people who seem to be especially aggressive in retreating from their ethical system. Moreover, it's got roughly the same kind of test of its ethical accomplishment that many religious systems do, namely, that the test of its ethical success will be so far futureward that it is not altogether that far from saying, "When I die, I will go to Heaven"--conduct today is justified by its unproven contribution to salvation beyond our ability to witness it. It's not alone in that respect--many climate activists are arguing for a case-limited version of effective altruism, but many of them also don't seem to want to grapple with that being the principle weakness of climate activism in terms of persuading present people to act differently. (e.g. to minimize or efface one's own satisfaction today for the benefit of life in the distant future). But climate activists generally understand that also as a matter of sacrifice and collective action, whereas many effective altruists follow something rather like the prosperity gospel: I am saved when I am wealthiest because that will make my personal generosity most powerful.
This is really intriguing! I'm not very well acquainted with EA beyond the very basics, although the track of my thoughts on morality in this strange era tends to hinge on the idea of attention and what it means to give that, often against one's attentual desires. Perhaps this is the proto EA condition.
For my sins, I've a strong background awareness of the seven deadlies. EA, and the morality of attention, seemingly have more to them. In some sense they fight a hybrid of sloth and greed... This is a newly globalised world, in which each of us is armed with unprecedented levels of knowledge, able to *choose* awareness, sensing the weight of the clanking causal chains trailing from every limb and orifice... I think we could reverse engineer an eigth deadly sin.
I don't know why we'd want to though. Aesthetic reasons?
Ethical systems in which rely on God(s)/Masters to dictate what is good, like commandments do, have great difficulty overcoming the Euthyphro dilemma. The dilemma asks whether moral claims are true because some authority commands them, or they are commanded because they are truly moral.
That way I understand your work here effective altruism aims to use reason and evidence to determine objective morality and then act on it. This sidesteps the Euthyphro dilemma by not basing ethics on fixed divine commands open to non-moral influences. It allows the system to self-correct.
I think this is also why non-vegans have such a negative reaction to veganism. (I am a vegan). But I've noticed people really hate it more than they hate vegetarianism, or environmentalists/conservationists. Because veganism takes such a strong stance on "eliminating animal products from your life is the ethical thing to do" which means that not doing that is from a vegan's perspective, not ethical. And people hate to be thought of as unethical, even if they disagree with someone else's ethics. Which is why a lot of people treat simply mentioning that you're vegan as a personal attack on them, even if you didn't say anything to them about their own diet and didn't pass judgement on them in any way.
As for effective altruism (which Peter Singer also supports) - I think it is a noble cause. Am I a full on effective altruist? No. Does that mean that I'm not maximally ethical? Yup. But I'm ok with that. I donate a fair bit to charity and used to donate to Givewell but I now focus more on animal advocacy/conservation causes.
I have got to say that this is a strange kind of special pleading for effective altruism that rests a tremendous amount on *claims* versus *does*. I'm not sure other ethical systems build in an allowance for a "line of retreat"; I think all ethical systems are frequently breached in practice, including effective altruism. I hate to say it but if there was a reason to dislike effective altruism, it is because it seems unusually prone to this sort of self-congratulatory "our ethical system is different" and perhaps equally prone to ignoring real-world evidence that effective altruism seems especially appealing to people who seem to be especially aggressive in retreating from their ethical system. Moreover, it's got roughly the same kind of test of its ethical accomplishment that many religious systems do, namely, that the test of its ethical success will be so far futureward that it is not altogether that far from saying, "When I die, I will go to Heaven"--conduct today is justified by its unproven contribution to salvation beyond our ability to witness it. It's not alone in that respect--many climate activists are arguing for a case-limited version of effective altruism, but many of them also don't seem to want to grapple with that being the principle weakness of climate activism in terms of persuading present people to act differently. (e.g. to minimize or efface one's own satisfaction today for the benefit of life in the distant future). But climate activists generally understand that also as a matter of sacrifice and collective action, whereas many effective altruists follow something rather like the prosperity gospel: I am saved when I am wealthiest because that will make my personal generosity most powerful.
Utilitarianism is the best ethical theory, in my opinion. Good article.
This is thought-provoking. Thank you.
This is really intriguing! I'm not very well acquainted with EA beyond the very basics, although the track of my thoughts on morality in this strange era tends to hinge on the idea of attention and what it means to give that, often against one's attentual desires. Perhaps this is the proto EA condition.
For my sins, I've a strong background awareness of the seven deadlies. EA, and the morality of attention, seemingly have more to them. In some sense they fight a hybrid of sloth and greed... This is a newly globalised world, in which each of us is armed with unprecedented levels of knowledge, able to *choose* awareness, sensing the weight of the clanking causal chains trailing from every limb and orifice... I think we could reverse engineer an eigth deadly sin.
I don't know why we'd want to though. Aesthetic reasons?