Coincidentally, I also like DeBoer, although I am fiercely anti-communist (having been born and raised in a communist country does that to you). I think you make some good arguments, and I would love to read his answer to your rebuttal.
Good rebuttal. My criticism of effective altruism and utilitarianism is that it arrogantly assumes that humans know what action will lead to the greatest good/happiness/lack of suffering. In reality, good intentions lead to bad outcomes all the time. It's absurd to think that humans can compile all potential variables, including ones they aren't even aware of until they come to fruition.
The example of giving money to a charity in rural Africa instead of a charity in a Western nation makes sense. I think there are uses for effective altruism in one's personal life which are totally fine. But we should be wary of collective, corporate actions with such aims because we don't actually know all the outcomes of our actions.
Yeah. Give to UNRWA which helps so many « oppressed » Palestinians instead of the food bank which takes care of my fellow citizens. Make sense than a man who loves animals more than he does humans would inspire SBF and the ChatGPT guy.
People should read deBoer's piece on EA. He is absolutely not purporting to disprove the idea that "prioritizing life-saving developing world charities is better than less impactful domestic ones." He is complaining about the EA-as-identity crowd's obsession with being 'the cleverest boy in the room'. This 'novelty problem' is a problem because the most novel philanthropic project may not in fact be the most effective; the most effective may be some mundane project like purchasing mosquito netting. It's not helpful to confuse this argument with his separate critique of utilitarianism.
It's a mistake to assume that the greatest good can be served by alleviating human suffering. Suffering is the fundamental condition of life. So far, all life requires our planet and a relatively complex balance of species that live on it. Also, so far, all life has only served one purpose: to produce more life. Our particular challenge is to succeed as the catalyst that extends life beyond the planet, that it may exist further into the future than our particular place of origin.
Coincidentally, I also like DeBoer, although I am fiercely anti-communist (having been born and raised in a communist country does that to you). I think you make some good arguments, and I would love to read his answer to your rebuttal.
Good rebuttal. My criticism of effective altruism and utilitarianism is that it arrogantly assumes that humans know what action will lead to the greatest good/happiness/lack of suffering. In reality, good intentions lead to bad outcomes all the time. It's absurd to think that humans can compile all potential variables, including ones they aren't even aware of until they come to fruition.
The example of giving money to a charity in rural Africa instead of a charity in a Western nation makes sense. I think there are uses for effective altruism in one's personal life which are totally fine. But we should be wary of collective, corporate actions with such aims because we don't actually know all the outcomes of our actions.
Yeah. Give to UNRWA which helps so many « oppressed » Palestinians instead of the food bank which takes care of my fellow citizens. Make sense than a man who loves animals more than he does humans would inspire SBF and the ChatGPT guy.
People should read deBoer's piece on EA. He is absolutely not purporting to disprove the idea that "prioritizing life-saving developing world charities is better than less impactful domestic ones." He is complaining about the EA-as-identity crowd's obsession with being 'the cleverest boy in the room'. This 'novelty problem' is a problem because the most novel philanthropic project may not in fact be the most effective; the most effective may be some mundane project like purchasing mosquito netting. It's not helpful to confuse this argument with his separate critique of utilitarianism.
It's a mistake to assume that the greatest good can be served by alleviating human suffering. Suffering is the fundamental condition of life. So far, all life requires our planet and a relatively complex balance of species that live on it. Also, so far, all life has only served one purpose: to produce more life. Our particular challenge is to succeed as the catalyst that extends life beyond the planet, that it may exist further into the future than our particular place of origin.