EA Forum Bot Site
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
[anonymous]3
0
0

Strongly agreed. For those who want exposition on this point, see Ashford's article on demandingness in contractualism vs. utilitarianism https://doi.org/10.1086/342853

Reply
See in context
by Joseph
1 min read6 answers 0

15

PhilosophyNormative ethicsMoral philosophyUtilitarianism
Frontpage

For a bunch of geeks like us who are interested in ethics and doing the right thing, I'm surprised to see so few mentions of T. M. Scanlon on the EA Forum[1]. Is there any particular reason for this, or is it just the general explanation of Scanlon not being heavily referenced by Toby Ord, Will MaCaskill, or Peter Singer, and therefore is not referenced much by EAs?

Here is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on contractualism, in case anyone wants to read some more. To be clear, I am no expert on Scanlon. I hadn't even heard of Scanlon and contractualism before reading How to Be Perfect, a playful book about ethics by the creator of the much-loved-by-EAs show The Good Place.

 - - - - 

EDIT: I've decided to track my changing thinking via edits. Here are some of my current best guesses as to contributing factors.

Factor 1: This is somewhat indicative of a characteristic of EAs: we dabble in ethics just enough to feel justified in our actions using utility and expected value, and then we move forward with a project/task/venture (with vague gestures toward cluelessness and uncertainty). 

Factor 2: Scanlon isn't nearly as influential as How to Be Perfect suggests. He doesn't show up on lists of the most influential moral philosophers.

Factor 3: EAs want something that feels more objective/rigorous than the fuzzy "reasonableness" that forms a core of Scanlon's ideas.

Factor 4: Scanlon's ideas don't provide much in regards to what we should do, and instead focus on what actions we should avoid.

  1. ^

    Actually, outside of the forum also. I haven't heard anyone mention T. M. Scanlon or contractualism at all.

15

0
0

Reactions

0
0
New Answer
New Comment


6 Answers sorted by
Top

Devin Kalish

29
8
0

The most obvious reason is probably aggregation. Scanlonians are among the philosophers most interested in developing non-aggregative theories of beneficence, and EA analyses tend to assume purely aggregative theories of beneficence as a starting point. More simply it could just be that Scanlon is still relatively obscure despite his moment in the sun on the Good Place.

[anonymous]3
0
0

Strongly agreed. For those who want exposition on this point, see Ashford's article on demandingness in contractualism vs. utilitarianism https://doi.org/10.1086/342853

Reply
Joseph1
0
0

Thanks for sharing additional resources!

Reply
Devin Kalish2
0
0

So long as we’re sharing recommendations, Parfit also has a good paper that’s relevant to this, which a good deal of the more recent partial aggregation debate is leap-frogging off of.

Reply

OllieBase

17
2
0

I did read some Scanlon a while back, and recall finding the theory a bit ungrounded compared to utilitarianism (lots of reasonable people being reasonable to one another without a reasonable explanation of "reasonable", which everything rests on).

I think Will named "What We Owe the Future" as a kind of retort to "What We Owe to Each Other" FWIW.

Joseph1
0
0

Yes, although I don't have any reference to piont to, I also suspected that the naming of "What We Owe the Future" was a bit of a reference to Scanlon.

Reply

Cody_Fenwick

15
4
0

I think the most basic answer is that Scanlon's philosophy doesn't really address the questions the EA community is most interested in, i.e., what are the best opportunities to have a positive impact on the world? What We Owe to Each Other offers a theory of wrongness, which is a very different framing. 

I'm a fan of Scanlon's work, but it has some pretty significant gaps, in my opinion. For example, it doesn't give great guidance on how to think of moral obligations to non-human animals or future generations.

I think you can make a pretty persuasive Scanlonian-style argument for some of the GWWC-style work, global health interventions, etc. But I'm not sure the Scanlonian argument adds all that much to these topics.

I think people could probably get a lot out of reading Scanlon, especially those who want to better understand non-consequentialist approaches to morality. But there are a lot of good and important books to read, and I'm not sure I'd prioritise recommending Scanlon out of all the many possibilities.

Nathan Young

5
1
0

I would like to hear more about this. Want to write a post about it?

Joseph6
3
1

Actually, I'd love to read an overview of the most important/influential moral philosophers of the 20th century and their ideas. It is the kind of thing that someone who is knowledgeable about the area could throw together relatively easily, but someone who knows almost nothing about it (like me) would spend weeks or months learning the basics.

Reply
OllieBase11
1
0

I'd love to read an overview of the most important/influential moral philosophers of the 20th century and their ideas

I think many introductions to moral philosophy will do this!
 

It is the kind of thing that someone who is knowledgeable about the area could throw together relatively easily

I think this is probably not the case! Writing succinctly about big ideas is very difficult.

Reply
5
Joseph
Hmmm. This gives me a small update toward thinking that I should just find a moral philosophy textbook and work my way through it.
Joseph6
1
0

I would if I knew more about it! Haha. But I think that my entire understanding of contractualism and Scanlon would only take up two or three sentences.

I am interested in learning more about ethics and moral philosophy, but I'm not interested in applying to a masters degree in philosophy, nor delving through a few dozen densely-written tomes.

Adopting an anthropologist's lens, I do find it curious that we EAs focus so much on a few small sections of the moral theories that exist, but I'm not sure if that is more due to "these ones are the best" or due to some type of oversight/bias/sloppy thinking.

Reply

GideonF

4
0
0

There have been about 4 papers on future generations and contracualism, including the following and what it responds to: https://www.cser.ac.uk/resources/wrongness-human-extinction/q

Derek Shiller

1
1
3

I don't get the impression that EAs are particularly motivated by morality. Rather, they are motivated to produce things they see as good. Some moral theories, like contractualism, see producing a lot of good things (within the bounds of our other moral duties) as morally optional. You're not doing wrong by living a normal decent life. It seems perfectly aligned with EA to hold one of those theories and still personally aim to do as much good as possible.

A moral theory is more important in what it tells you you can't do in pursuit of the good. Generally what is practical to do if you're trying to effectively pursue the good and abiding by the standard moral rules of society (e.g. don't steal money to give to charity) go hand in hand, so I would expect to see less discussion of this on the forum. Where they come apart, it is probably a significant reputational risk to discuss them.

Devin Kalish3
0
0

So this depends if you take EA to be more fundamentally interested in theories of beneficence (roughly what ought you do to positively help others) or in theories of axiology (roughly what makes a world better or worse). I’m suspicious of most theories that pull these apart, but importantly Scanlon’s work is really interested in trying to separate the two, and basically ditch the direct relevance of axiology altogether. Certainly he goes beyond telling people what they ought not to do. If EA is fundamentally about beneficence, Scanlon is very relevant, if it’s more about axiology, he’s more or less silent.

Reply
More from Joseph
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
I am writing this to reflect on my experience interning with the Fish Welfare Initiative, and to provide my thoughts on why more students looking to build EA experience should do something similar.  Back in October, I cold-emailed the Fish Welfare Initiative (FWI) with my resume and a short cover letter expressing interest in an unpaid in-person internship in the summer of 2025. I figured I had a better chance of getting an internship by building my own door than competing with hundreds of others to squeeze through an existing door, and the opportunity to travel to India carried strong appeal. Haven, the Executive Director of FWI, set up a call with me that mostly consisted of him listing all the challenges of living in rural India — 110° F temperatures, electricity outages, lack of entertainment… When I didn’t seem deterred, he offered me an internship.  I stayed with FWI for one month. By rotating through the different teams, I completed a wide range of tasks:  * Made ~20 visits to fish farms * Wrote a recommendation on next steps for FWI’s stunning project * Conducted data analysis in Python on the efficacy of the Alliance for Responsible Aquaculture’s corrective actions * Received training in water quality testing methods * Created charts in Tableau for a webinar presentation * Brainstormed and implemented office improvements  I wasn’t able to drive myself around in India, so I rode on the back of a coworker’s motorbike to commute. FWI provided me with my own bedroom in a company-owned flat. Sometimes Haven and I would cook together at the residence, talking for hours over a chopping board and our metal plates about war, family, or effective altruism. Other times I would eat at restaurants or street food booths with my Indian coworkers. Excluding flights, I spent less than $100 USD in total. I covered all costs, including international transportation, through the Summer in South Asia Fellowship, which provides funding for University of Michigan under
 ·  · 7m read
 · 
My new book, Altruismo racional, is now on presale. It is my attempt at presenting a compelling case for a particular strand of "classical EA"[1]: one that emphasizes caring deeply about global health and poverty, a rational approach to giving, the importance of cost-effectiveness, and the 🔸10% Pledge. In this post, I provide some context on my reasons for writing this book and what I hope to achieve. If “new EA-themed book in Spanish” was all you needed to know, feel free to skip to How you can help or preorder now. Why write a book Imagine you wake up one morning and discover the world has changed in a few peculiar ways. There has been no 10th anniversary edition of Peter Singer's The Life You Can Save—it was last edited more than a decade ago and has been out of print for years. Will MacAskill has not written Doing Good Better nor any of his pieces for The Guardian. And that’s not all. You ask around about EA and get mostly confused looks. Someone mentions a blog called “Codice Stellare Something” that later changed its name. You look it up but it's written in some foreign language that's hard to understand. “Toby who?” He seems to be associated with something called Geben Was Wir Können that you cannot pronounce, let alone remember. Welcome to Spain—or, I dare say, the Spanish-speaking world—where language friction[2] curbs the potential of most of the ways people first hear about EA. This is true for many other topics, of course. In Spain, people usually don't hear directly from those doing cutting-edge work in the English-speaking world, but rather from local explainers or commentators. Top non-fiction books like Sapiens or Antifragile are read, overwhelmingly, in translation. I have been close to some attempts to translate key EA-themed books into Spanish. The problem? Publishers are quite uninterested because only a handful of English-speaking public intellectuals have the global name recognition to guarantee sales. The Scout Mindset and What We Owe T
 ·  · 3m read
 · 
Summary * 🤰🏽 A randomized study in Kenya found that giving families a $1,000 GiveDirectly cash transfer immediately cut infant deaths by 48%. → * 🏥 Deaths dropped most for mothers living near physician-staffed health facilities and those who received cash in the weeks before they gave birth. → * 🩺 GiveDirectly is launching a new program to maximize these life-saving impacts, partnering with a Kenyan community health provider to get cash to more expectant mothers. → ---------------------------------------- In rural Kenya, giving poor families a one-time $1,000 transfer cut infant deaths nearly in half, one of the largest reductions ever recorded for a poverty program. With global aid budgets shrinking and funders under pressure to do more with less, the findings point to cash as a powerful, underused tool to reduce preventable deaths. Cash cut infant deaths by 48% The study, led by researchers at UC Berkeley and Oxford, tracked over 100,000 births and found that infant mortality fell by 48% in the years families received a one-time $1,000 transfer from GiveDirectly. It’s a striking result, reinforcing what decades of research have already shown: poverty itself is one of the biggest risk factors for a child’s survival. As the researchers note, “infant and child mortality appears highly sensitive to economic conditions.” Cash saved lives by helping new moms rest, eat, and deliver safely The biggest gains were among newborns: deaths within the first 30 days of a baby’s life fell by 63%, with drops in maternal and newborn causes of death accounting for more than half of the overall decline in infant deaths.  This drop was driven by a 45% increase in hospital deliveries and a 51% drop in work (often physically strenuous) during the third trimester and postpartum. Less work in late pregnancy coincided with fewer deaths from complications at birth.  When mothers have cash, they get care, proving that sometimes, the best way to save a child’s life is to simp
Relevant opportunities
100
Can for-profit companies create significant, direct impact?
T.K., Ambitious Impact, Jacintha Baas
· · 9m read
6
6
131
Debate: Morality is Objective
Bentham's Bulldog
· · 13m read
219
219
26
Mental Health Funding Circle – Call for Proposals
Ambitious Impact, Peter Brietbart, Joey🔸
· · 1m read
0
0
View more