V_V comments on A critique of effective altruism - LessWrong

64 Post author: benkuhn 02 December 2013 04:53PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (152)

Comments (152)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: V_V 03 December 2013 04:30:27PM 2 points [-]

This is not true (and incidentally is a pet peeve of mine). I know plenty of EAs who are not utilitarian EAs. Most EAs I know would dispute this (at least in conversation on the EA facebook group there appears to be a consensus that EA ≠ utilitarianism).

Effective altruism is not the same as utilitarianism, but it is certainly based on it. How else would you call trying to maximize a numeric measure of cumulative good?

What do you mean that you do not endorse EA?

I think I've already responded in the parent comment.

Comment author: weeatquince 07 December 2013 05:48:38PM 4 points [-]

Effective altruism is not the same as utilitarianism, but it is certainly based on it. How else would you call trying to maximize a numeric measure of cumulative good?

This is incorrect. Effective altruism is applying rationality to doing good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism). It is not always maximizing. For example you could be EA and not believe you should ever actively cause harm (ie you would not kill one person to save 5). It does require quantifying things, as much as making any other rational decision requires quantifying things.

I think I've already responded in the parent comment.

No you have not. You have expressed criticisms of things EAs do. The OP expressed lots of criticisms too but still actively endorses EA. I ask mainly because I agree with many of your criticisms, but I still actively endorse EA. And I wonder at what point on the path we differ.

Comment author: V_V 07 December 2013 08:23:36PM 2 points [-]

It is not always maximizing. For example you could be EA and not believe you should ever actively cause harm (ie you would not kill one person to save 5). It does require quantifying things, as much as making any other rational decision requires quantifying things.

Fair enough. I think it could be said that while the philosophy behind EA is rooted in total utilitarianism, people who practice EA can further constrain it within a deontological moral system. (I suppose that this true even of people who explicitly proclaim themselves utilitarians).

No you have not. You have expressed criticisms of things EAs do. The OP expressed lots of criticisms too but still actively endorses EA. I ask mainly because I agree with many of your criticisms, but I still actively endorse EA. And I wonder at what point on the path we differ.

I wonder that too. If you agree with many of my criticisms, why do you still endorse EA?

Comment author: EALE 09 December 2013 12:21:28PM 0 points [-]

The term "EA" is undoubtedly based on a form of total utilitarianism. Whatever the term means today, and whatever Wikipedia says (which, incidentally, weeatquince helped to write, though I can't remember if he wrote the part he is referring to), the motivation behind the creation of the term was the need for a much more palatable and slightly broader term for total utilitarianism.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit