Cool, and thank you very much!

Thank you for the reply! I don't think I disagree - the community is a real part of what EA is, and the EA community was closely connected with the FTX scandal. My only goal in responding was to argue that this connection tells us nothing about the correctness of the underlying moral framework. And it seems as though you agree with that as well. 

I would guess people have different targets in mind when criticizing or defending EA: for some, it's the community, while for some, it's the framework (and for some, it's both). I personally am much more concerned about the EA framework, as I think the community can always be restructured and adjusted to fit the framework. There probably is/was needed adjustment in the wake of the FTX scandal. I'm perfectly happy to say that. In the article I said, 

"I won’t say EA as an organization or community is blameless here. But that doesn’t change the EA framework as being the best (and correct) framework for evaluation of charity effectiveness."

So at the end of the day, I welcome calls for changes to the EA community or movement, including as it relates to FTX/SBF. I just think it should be made extra crispy clear that these FTX/SBF-related criticisms (at least the ones I have seen) do not have interesting implications about the intellectual project or moral framework espoused by EA, which was my goal to defend in the article. The EA movement can always survive by sifting itself and readjusting to be in alignment with the fundamental intellectual and moral commitments in the case of any community-based failings. 

What do you think?

Hey JD and Sean, did you guys ever end up getting connected? 

Sincerely,

Someone else interested in the intersection of EA and religion (and also JD's friend)

Hello Jay, good to see you here! (from EA for Christians). I haven't engaged the forum until now either but hope to start.