▲ 79 points
back
111 comments
I think many are missing the article's thesis since it's very, _very_ poorly written: "I would argue that altruism is really meant to help the altruist, not the altruee."
The critical flaw of the essay is that the only evidence to back this point up is (1) "look, a bunch of people donated to the NY opera!" and (2) "look what some effective altruist said; he must represent all altruists". All in all, the essay's erratic logic is only rendered worse by its incomprehensible thesaurus mangling. Of course, intentional obfuscation is a hedge against criticism.
There's poorly-written philosophy and well-written philosophy. This is neither.
Edit: My apologies for the caustic comment, but I felt it warranted, given the glib tone of the article
As someone who doesn't read much philosophy, it this article is really weird. Generally I expect glibness to signal that a work will be accessible, "I'm cutting through the bullshit, here are the essential bits." But despite the glibness here, it seems to be completely steeped in lingo and some ongoing argument.
It seems to me quite odd that moral philosophy seems always to get so bogged down in lingo. You'd think the study of "how to be good" should be something that values directness and accessibility. What is the point of a moral philosophy that only a couple academics can follow?
Philosophy never got over Wittgenstein, who had a point that "most philosophical problems aren't real and are just confusion caused by unclear use of terminology". (Most common example on HN: people talking about "artificial general intelligence" without defining "intelligence".)
Analytic (Anglo/UK philosophy) philosophy tries to solve this by being extremely clear about everything to the point of looking like a math paper. This turned out to not work because math can't do that, but it still means there's a lot of specific -isms.
Continental (French/German) philosophy seems to just lean into it and can be nearly unreadable; some of this is translation issues, some people say this is because their points are so deep they can't be expressed in clear language, and some people say this is because French people don't respect philosophers unless they don't understand what they're talking about.
As for what you can do about this - well, maybe you could just ask them what they meant?
The article's thesis is that EA's moral realism stance (which finds it's apotheosis in utilitarian moral calculus) is ill-supported and highly questionable, especially when combined with theological anti-realism.
It's definitely not written to win over any EA supporter, that's for sure.
Is EA predicated on moral realism? That seems like a straw man. I don't see any contradiction between abandoning realism (i.e. admitting that there is no objective way to measure goodness or other moral qualities) and EA.
We probably just define EA differently. When I'm elected dictator, it'll be illegal to write an essay like this without supplying your working definition of the thing you're against.
The article is nothing more than a rant. That is absolutely okay as long as it encapsulates some beautifully written outrage and at least some portion of self aware wit. Neither of those were detectable while reading. As a philosopher myself (though I left the university many moons ago), this is unfortunately the de facto standard of internet philosophy,
The field seems to attract mostly curious people and overthinkers but also a very vocal minority of people that don’t seek answers or even very good questions but want to ramble in a seemingly eloquent way about very broad topics - so broad that philosophers seldom dare to write books about them without decades of sincere chipping at academic details under their belt.
This blog post I just dragged myself to read until the end has nothing to do with philosophy - that’s not a dig at the author, more at the audience which assumes that a post about moral philosophy obviously has to be philosophy. By typing this out I hope to be able to illustrate the logical error that lead to this top comment along its children.
It’s just a blog post that was obviously crafted with a certain audience in mind and more of a cheeky rambling than an honest attempt to talk about moral philosophy in a way that transcends the discussion of pretty well read people with too many alcohol in them at the ugly and tired end of a drawn out social event.
The rant is at times funny to read because of the use of so many exclamation marks, italics and whatnot. I imagined a person gesturing wildly with a counterpart gasping in the pauses to try for a rebuttal but finally nodding apathetically while swaying his glass of wine.
TL,DR: This is not philosophy but a blog post and you guys should keep that in mind while discussing its content.
I think that your comment is spot on, and it actually helped me confirm the first impression that I had (but wasn't too sure about).
> The critical flaw of the essay is that the only evidence to back this point up is (1) "look, a bunch of people donated to the NY opera!" and (2) "look what some effective altruist said; he must represent all altruists"
The book 'The Elephant in the Brain' by Robin Hanson and Kevin Simler describes this position and has references to a lot of research.
I read the tantrum of an article. Then I read your comment and smiled. I like you.
> many are missing the article's thesis
Yourself included, apparently
This article makes for a fun guessing-game to determine what the ideological background of the author is. Effective Altruism definitely seems like one of those heavily-blogged about fads that's in vogue now with the tech-adjacent Rationalist set, so always curious to see who ends up opposing it.
> Let me also say that atheism for the masses, in retrospect, was an enormous error. Organized religion as a social technology is invaluable and the modern atomized welfare state is a pathetic replacement. Atheism for the intellectual class is perfectly alright, but in the age of mass literacy there is really no barrier between them and the rest of society. Was atheism inevitable? Perhaps. But the New Atheists certainly didn't help. Extrapolating this line of reasoning is left as an exercise to the reader.
As fun as it is to re-litigate the culture wars of yesterdecade, I don't really think the post-Bush administration diminishment of public Christianity in the U.S. is creating the society that the New Atheists want(ed). Conspiracy theories and irrational memeplexes have completely run rampant in the public sphere in the U.S. and the western world. Superstition and magical thinking is all over the place, the objects of devotion just happen to center around modern politics and items from the news, rather than figures from ancient history. If anything, many people are less firm atheists and more like apatheists - people just sort of believe whatever their social circle and social media reinforces.
I‘m pretty agnostic but I see the benefits of religious societies. One trend that surprises me is the upturn of astrology especially among well-educated people. When I frame it as just another religion I received confusion in return because apparently they see it as a rational thing to believe in. This was just a personal anecdote from my experience using Bumble and Tinder in a middle eastern country and in the US until I actually checked it on google trends:
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=%2Fm%2F0...
I think it was Leslie Newbigin in the 80s who predicted that as less people identified as Christian in the West that more people would begin to deify politics and that this would lead us to a very bad place.
Edit: Found a quote from one of Newbigin's books: “The sacralizing of politics, the total identification of a political goal with the will of God, always unleashed demonic powers.” From his book Foolishness to the Greeks published in 1986.
Also curious about who would oppose EA. My first thought is people who would be threatened by expectation that we measure the actual impact of social efforts.
I'm not sure if you're actually reading this (mess) right:
> The neoconservatives, for example, are a showcase of what happens when the moralogian takes hold of the reins of foreign policy—and it is a consistent ideology that genuinely seeks to spread the values it values.
I know Bush himself was elected as "religious right", but the author seems to view the neocons as atheist ("moralogian"), and Bush himself was kind of a well-meaning puppet puppy... I always thought "atheism for the masses" got rolling much earlier in '92 (I think of Clinton as "nihilist pseudo-liberal conservative" but that's just me).
I don't even know what to call the current moment - batshit delusionalism? That kinda works...
I'm too dumb to understand what this article is talking about. I thought Effective Altruism was about maximizing goodness/dollar when donating to charity. I assumed the measure of goodness was treated as an axiom, and up for critique. Number of lives saved per dollar seems to be a common metric, and one can argue why or why not that's a good measure.
The article, as far as I can follow it, seems to be trying to discredit the idea that we can know what a good measure is, objectively. Okay, I guess I can see that. But who cares? Lives/dollar seems like a good measure to me, and I like it. No more reasoning required. It's my money and I decide what to do with it. And I can still think people who disagree with me are wrong.
Moral realism, metaethics, what is all this crap? Is there more to Effective Altruism that I am unaware of? What are they even trying to argue? On either side?
> Is there more to Effective Altruism that I am unaware of?
You've got the concepts right.
However, Effective Altruism (with capital letters) has evolved into a collection of organizations, communities, bloggers, and personalities who exist adjacent to the "rationalist" community and spend a lot of time debating about things. There's also a large sect of the EA community that believes the risk of artificial intelligence becoming sentient and taking over the world in the future is the biggest risk to the world and therefore deserving of a lot of EA funding. Different people will give you different answers about how relevant this group is to the broader EA movement.
The more I read about Effective Altruism, the more I think it's best to stick to the high-level concepts and not get involved with all of the drama that surrounds self-labeled Effective Altruist communities or "movements". It gets weird, quickly.
Without moral realism, why should I care about your personal moral preferences?
Related (by title at least):
Against ‘Effective Altruism’ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28520719 - Sept 2021 (2 comments)
Also (thanks jinpan!):
Effective altruism as a tower of assumptions - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32576224 - Aug 2022 (89 comments)
Edit: ok, also these:
The Reluctant Prophet of Effective Altruism - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32386984 - Aug 2022 (185 comments)
‘Effective Altruism’ Is Neither - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32224597 - July 2022 (22 comments)
Notes on Effective Altruism - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31609325 - June 2022 (116 comments)
The elitist philanthropy of so-called effective altruism (2013) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31285371 - May 2022 (78 comments)
Effective altruism is not effective - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26813763 - April 2021 (240 comments)
I also, finding the post at least interesting to think about, and somewhat more compact, wrote my own version of the it, and followed up with some abbreviated notes of what I have been thinking of as a reasonable response/cure to the mentioned problems (ie, as a kind of establishment of a basis for value ethics):
https://mflb.com/fine_1/effective_alturism_morality_out.html
The author of this piece doesn't seem to understand the basics of systems thinking and the entropic effects of non-moral action on human collectivism.
EA won't produce the proper outcomes. It's the 80,000 hours people are likely more attracted to and the job listings that come with it. In most instances, positive outcomes for humans begin with negative perspectives because that's how our psychology works.
Practical Altruism isn't about what people deserve it's about what they need. It's not enough to teach a man to fish if he is unwilling to learn. You have to make them believe there will be a crop shortage so they need to learn.
True altruists will change their methods of effecting change for the situation, people, times, and needs. Because, if not we as humans will find a way to corrupt it.
Adam Smith was a moral philosopher. Which is why the invisible hand acts the way it acts.
> The author of this piece doesn't seem to understand the basics of systems thinking and the entropic effects of non-moral action on human collectivism.
But why should I care about these effects if I am not in charge of such systems?
I'm a moral anti-realist, but that doesn't stop me from acting according to my morals. Much like existentialism doesn't stop you from creating internal meaning to life moral anti realism doesn't stop you from having moral opinions. Just because moral statements aren't facts doesn't mean I don't get utility from acting on my chosen moral preferences. In fact, in a non-spiritual world there is no reason for realists and anti-realists to behave differently at all. If there aren't consequences for behaving immorally the only reason to do so is because of how it makes you feel.
This article is written in such a scattered/hectic style that I’m honestly kind of worried for the author. Has the vibe of a manic episode and was almost impossible to follow.
Not sure I would go so far as to be worried for the author as I believe we all have such thoughts when trying to grapple with complex and competing theories, but it's definitely a stream of consciousness and not a coherent essay written for effective communication.
> So here's my pitch to you: effective altruism is the altruism that raises your status the most
Effective altruism brings opportunities for status, for sure.
But that doesn’t mean trying to help people effectively is a bad thing.
Would you walk past a child drowning in a shallow pond, when you could easily intervene and save them?
Based on how this gets operationalized in argumentation, 99% of people would not. Being confronted with Singer led me to reject ethics, not to become more ethical.
If you're caught on camera saving the child, and become famous doing it, then your status has been raised! If the child goes on to be the next Hitler, are you responsible?
I'm not serious about the above, of course, but one can tie theirself in knots overthinking the moral consequences of every action. Which is, I believe, a critique that works equally well against both EA and anti-EA.
Do the right thing. If you fuck that up, try to learn and do the right thing tomorrow. Don't overthink it.
One of my favorite essays on "vs effective altruism" - https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/effective-altruism-as-...
> The moralogians appeal to nothing and expect you to accept it! Is the origin of moral facts natural, or supernatural? If natural, can we engineer our own? Why or why not?
Of course morals are natural in origin, and the shared basis for them is genetic at its core.
Does this imply there is some grand plan outside of natural selection for them? Of course not. Does it mean that these rules can be engineered to our liking? No more than you can engineer your own DNA. Maybe someday, but what's the reason? Our billions of years of evolution has done a pretty good job of it IMO.
As for altruism, it's painfully obvious that a) it does exist, and that b) it is a universal condition we all hold.
Where did altruism come from? Dawkins points to our ancestor's lengthy existence in a small group of ~200 individuals. Survival meant not only optimizing for your own genetic survival, but for that of the collective.
Imagine for a moment the vast bulk of humanity living without altruism. I suspect things would fall to pieces very quickly. It's a good thing our genetic code is littered with bits of rules like altruism.
> Your "adaptation execution" has been memetically hijacked—where once you would get good things in return for your "altruism" (a stronger community, status, reciprocal altruism, coalition-building, or even "niceness, community, and civilization"), a runaway meme has now convinced you that it's actually better to get nothing!5 You get all the costs of religion, and none of the prosocial benefits!
This is true. Or wrong, because getting nothing in return is very much in the spirit of Christian self-sacrifice.
"Now, you might be thinking "But Alvaro, you idiot, we're adaptation executors, not fitness maximizers! This is all perfectly alright, you see." Sure, we're adaptation executors, but that doesn't give you a blank check to execute whatever retarded adaptation was bred into your hairy great-....great-grandfather 500,000 years ago, and is now incompatible with the world you live in"
Huh? Yes it does. You can't go on a rant in favor of moral anti-realism and them criticize people for not having the right set of values. I mean, you can, but it makes you an idiot.
I am skeptical of effective altruism as anything useful or worthwhile but this article doesn't address the real issues with the movement. There is a fundamental flaw with utilitarianism and it's the fact that "good" can not be defined in terms of utility functions. It's not possible to reduce morality to mathematics and dollar expenditure but that seems to be what effective altruists are proposing. Reduced to its core propositions it is essentially an economic religion with utility maximization as its only commandment.
> There is a fundamental flaw with utilitarianism and it's the fact that "good" can not be defined in terms of utility functions.
Why not? I'd say huge parts of human behavior are enormously utilitarian. Eg, a huge amount of people will be pro-war if the war has a good purpose to it. Ultimately a war consists of A killing B, and B killing A, and most everyone will find a side to cheer for, which is usually extremely predictable based on who and where they are.
> It's not possible to reduce morality to mathematics and dollar expenditure but that seems to be what effective altruists are proposing.
I think on the whole examining the consequences of our actions results in a more pleasant world to live in long term. It's important to actually think why we're doing what we're doing. Is it to earn moral points for ourselves, or to create a better world long term?
Eg, charity done carelessly can be destructive to those we intend to help.
Link to something I wrote once, which includes a discussion about absolute vs relative morality: http://thinkinghard.com/blog/BiologyOfMorality.html.
(It would appear that "moral realism" is just another way of saying "absolute morality", or "moral absolutism".)
Effective Altruism of the AI streak in a POSIWID sense appears to have the purpose of creating a shit ton of blog posts and no other discernable outcome.
The other variant of the GiveWell.org kind which is QALY focused appears to have worked on the QALY metric. Not everyone believes in QALY-based utilitarianism, so they're predictably unhappy, but that's it.
Mencius already refuted EA in Mencius 3A:5,
"I have heard that this MacAskill is an Effective Altruist. Now Singer considers that in the regulation of funeral matters a spare simplicity should be the rule. MacAskill thinks with EA doctrines to change the customs of the kingdom - how does he regard them as if they were wrong, and not honor them? Notwithstanding his views, MacAskill buried his own parents in a sumptuous manner, and so he served them in the way which his doctrines discountenance.
…
"Heaven gives birth to creatures in such a way that they have one root, and MacAskill makes them to have two roots. This is the cause of his error. In the most ancient times, there were some who did not inter their parents. When their parents died, they took them up and threw them into some water-channel. Afterwards, when passing by them, they saw foxes and wild-cats devouring them, and flies and gnats biting at them. The perspiration started out upon their foreheads, and they looked away, unable to bear the sight. It was not on account of other people that this perspiration flowed. The emotions of their hearts affected their faces and eyes, and instantly they went home, and came back with baskets and spades and covered the bodies. If the covering them thus was indeed right, you may see that the filial son and virtuous man, in interring in a handsome manner their parents, act according to a proper rule."
EA is based on our natural emotional responses: pain is bad, pleasure is good, etc. But it rationalizes until it has lost its own roots. Suddenly we're debating about making lions extinct because they hunt prey and converting the universe to hedonium. You must preserve the root!
I genuinely can't tell if this is sarcasm or a serious attempt at critiquing Effective Altruism. Can anyone disentangle this (word salad) for me?
Can't follow this article, but there is a certain hubris to effective altruism folk that is rather off putting. As if to think fate is in our mortal hands. A charity of a single date with the right intention could outweigh millions of dollars with the wrong one.
Are there many effective altruists who are not humanists? As I understand it humanism is founded on moral anti-realism and endorses scientific tools to, at least in principle, discover formal models of human morality so that it can be better optimized.
My response is titled:
“Against Academic, Dead-end Philosophical Arguments”
Instead of arguing the definition of morality, just go out and help other people. The end.
That's a lovely sentiment, but it quickly runs into problems. Sometimes it's hard to know if an helpful action will produce a positive outcome. Certainly, just giving people what they ask for won't necessarily do that. For example it's probably better to not help an alcoholic with violent tendencies acquire more liquor, even if he asks very nicely.
It's almost as if there's some sort of a need for a normative science of what acts are truly helpful in the sense of improving lives and which aren't. I propose we call those acts that are helpful and make things better "good." Then we can go about trying to figure out what acts are "good" and under what circumstances in some kind of systematic way. Let's give this enterprise a Greek name to make it sound more impressive.
Subtitle:
"Instead of arguing Utilitarianism vs Deontology, everyone should just follow Virtue Ethics"
When "going out and helping other people" you need to carefully evaluate any side effects or consequences, and also recognize that some methods of helping are more wasteful than others.
Would it be better to buy 10 needy people health insurance, or to use that money advocating for health care reforms? What if it's 100 people instead?
In general, should you act locally or act globally? Should you invest your money to use it for big improvements, or spend on an ongoing basis making small improvements instead?
This is fantastically stupid.
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names."
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
If you know more than someone else, that's great—but in that case, please share some of what you know so the rest of us can learn.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
Man, this motherfucker must just be a big ol' hoot at parties.
Please don't do this. If you don't like an article, there are plenty of other things to read. Hopefully you might like some of those.