I should have defined ordinary the contribution of people based on competences that can be developed by the majority of people in a few months, and extraordinary the contribution based on competences that only few people can develop.
Using this definition, I do find that the dichotomies ordinary vs. extraordinary and bonobos vs chimps (meaning, kindness vs. competition) have something in common and that the overlap between them is key, even though they are not the same thing.
If we only value extraordinary contribution from exceptionally bright people, we are bound to set a competitive context and foster competitive feelings. Of course we should value extraordinary contribution from exceptionally bright people. We should also make sure that we do this by engaging ordinary people doing ordinary things, thus promoting a social context in which it is a win-win for everybody, like bonobos do much better than chimps.
However, your suggestion goes in the direction of kindness that I am advocating because it is a way to engage everybody, rather than only the exceptionally talented.
Beautifully explained. I see two possible directions for further development:
Relativity and quantum mechanics suggest that physical reality is fundamentally different from any intuitive model we can construct. Does this challenge any of the article's assumptions on the relation between reality and philosophy? Spoiler alert: I don't think so, but there are a couple of issues worth addressing.
I agree that morality involves understanding consequences and acting to produce beneficial outcomes. The open question remains: to what extent is "beneficial" subjective versus objective?
We need to keep in mind that we are effective altruists (or effective anything) to the extent that we are also respected members of our communities, not only of the EA community. We live in a world in which meat-eaters are much of the population. In this kind of world, the belief that the life of a meat-eater life has a net negative value would turn us into a cult of phanatic monsters. Or at least we would be perceived in this way. We would have no chance whatsoever of contributing to the end of cruelty. We need to stay humans, connected to all kinds of humans. The quantitative approach to morality is powerful, one of the best ideas I can think of. But it's not the only tool we should use.
Thanks for the comment Madhusudhan.
I should have defined ordinary the contribution of people based on competences that can be developed by the majority of people in a few months, and extraordinary the contribution based on competences that only few people can develop.
Using this definition, I do find that the dichotomies ordinary vs. extraordinary and bonobos vs chimps (meaning, kindness vs. competition) have something in common and that the overlap between them is key, even though they are not the same thing.
If we only value extraordinary contribution from exceptionally bright people, we are bound to set a competitive context and foster competitive feelings. Of course we should value extraordinary contribution from exceptionally bright people. We should also make sure that we do this by engaging ordinary people doing ordinary things, thus promoting a social context in which it is a win-win for everybody, like bonobos do much better than chimps.
However, your suggestion goes in the direction of kindness that I am advocating because it is a way to engage everybody, rather than only the exceptionally talented.
Beautifully explained. I see two possible directions for further development:
We need to keep in mind that we are effective altruists (or effective anything) to the extent that we are also respected members of our communities, not only of the EA community. We live in a world in which meat-eaters are much of the population. In this kind of world, the belief that the life of a meat-eater life has a net negative value would turn us into a cult of phanatic monsters. Or at least we would be perceived in this way. We would have no chance whatsoever of contributing to the end of cruelty. We need to stay humans, connected to all kinds of humans. The quantitative approach to morality is powerful, one of the best ideas I can think of. But it's not the only tool we should use.