I anticipate that others will say that you are not obligated to live your life to help others. I disagree, and think that we are obligated to do so. I agree that there is often very little difference between acting to do something that harms conscious beings and failing to do something that you are capable of doing that you know will prevent harm.

However, if you do not take care of yourself, you will (a) be less productive and (b) risk burnout and abandoning your commitment to help others. Even if you aspire to do the most good, without privileging your own interests, it is still prudent to make sure that your basic needs are met so that you are most likely to be be able and willing to do the most good throughout the course of your life.

Good question! I share that intuition that preventing harm is a really good thing to do, and I find striking the right balance between self-sacrifice and pursuing my own interests difficult.

I think if you argue that that leads to anything close to a normal life you are being disingenuous

I think this is probably wrong for most people. If you make yourself unhappy by trying to force yourself to make sacrifices you don't want to make, I think most people will be much less productive. And I think that most people actually need a fairly normal social life etc. to avoid that. I believe this because I've seen and heard stories of people burning out from trying to work too hard, and I've come close myself.

I think the best way to have a large impact probably looks like working as hard as you sustainably can (for most people, I think this is working hard in a normal 9-5 work week or less), and spending enough time thinking seriously about the best strategy for you to make the biggest difference. It might also involve donating money, but again I think it's a good use of money to spend some money on what makes you happy, to prevent resentment and burn out.

Effective altruism in the garden of ends is a great reflection from someone who experienced this dilemma.

This essay is a reconciliation of moral commitment and the good life. Here is its essence in two paragraphs:

Totalized by an ought, I sought its source outside myself. I found nothing. The ought came from me, an internal whip toward a thing which, confusingly, I already wanted – to see others flourish. I dropped the whip. My want now rested, commensurate, amidst others of its kind – terminal wants for ends-in-themselves: loving, dancing, and the other spiritual requirements of my particular life. To say that these were lesser seemed to say, “It is more vital and urgent to eat well than to drink or sleep well.” No – I will eat, sleep, and drink well to feel alive; so too will I love and dance as well as help.

Once, the material requirements of life were in competition: If we spent time building shelter it might jeopardize daylight that could have been spent hunting. We built communities to take the material requirements of life out of competition. For many of us, the task remains to do the same for our spirits. Particularly so for those working outside of organized religion on huge, consuming causes. I suggest such a community might practice something like “fractal altruism,” taking the good life at the scale of its individuals out of competition with impact at the scale of the world.

I strongly recommend this post: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/AjxqsDmhGiW9g8ju6/effective-altruism-in-the-garden-of-ends

Of course you can make arguments to maintain some form of a social life and some other things being neccessary to maintain productivity over the long haul, but I think if you argue that that leads to anything close to a normal life you are being disingenuous.

I likely disagree, but depends on definitions. Could you describe what a life fully committed to helping others looks like for you?

but it does not seem to me most people here are actually completely commiting their life to helping others. I'd love to hear your reasoning for that

No solid reasoning, but some reasons given you asked:
- I am not trying to completely commit my life to helping others. Furthermore, I personally could easily do some more e.g. donating 20% instead of 10%, while still having comfortable normal life.
- I have accepted that this may not be morally acceptable in some objective sense.
- I am happy with what I do, given the baseline in society. Sure I could do more, but why should it be me. Fundamentally, it does boil down to valuing other things beyond helping others or 'total utility', including my own enjoyment, having comfortable life, etc.
- Community will likely achieve more the bigger it is, so having standards that are attainable is important. I think the 10% Pledge is great benchmark.
- Peter Singer, key figurehead of community, is not fully vegan despite thinking it is morally correct. (He eats vegan whenever he cooks for himself, but will eat veggie if others are cooking for him.)

In the end, people are messy and weird and generally doing their best. But at least EAs are doing and achieving more than most others and are significantly moving the needle in a positive direction.
 

Justify to who? God? Your mom?