Very good post.

In an era where new movements for social change are sorely lacking, the emergence of this "family of consequentialist altruists" (from "Giving What We Canl" onward) has been a welcome development of the past twenty years.

Rationally organized altruism (as opposed to altruism based on biases, traditions, sentimentality, and prejudices) may seem at first glance to be a modest contribution, but it holds the key to human social progress, as it represents a step toward an "altruistic economy," characteristic of advanced prosociality.

The problem is that, like other initiatives for non-political social progress (for example, self-managed egalitarianism), it doesn't seem to be succeeding. The "Effective Altruism" community isn't expanding.

If five or ten million intellectually well-educated individuals from the most privileged social sectors (roughly the profile of an EA activist) were contributing to the movement at the level, for example, of Mr. Toby Ord, we would not only have extraordinarily positive "consequentialist results" that would alleviate the suffering of millions of people enduring a ruthless social order, but, more importantly, we would be witnessing a social paradigm shift at all levels.

But the number of EA "believers" is far lower than that; it is not significant enough in terms of cultural change. We should not fall into the "consequentialist trap" that says "a little is better than nothing": EA should be conceived as a stage of civilizational progress, but perhaps it is a stage in the process of completion.

There is no "motivating force" in EA. EA is failing to connect emotionally with millions of people morally disposed to "make a better world" in the face of the scandalous inequalities of today's world. In its "academic aseptic" approach, it is losing sight of the psychological possibilities of a movement for social change that should appeal to the ethical emotionality of empathy, caring, transcendence, and a sense of community. And in doing so, it is engaging in "consequentialism wrong"… because we urgently need to mobilize more people to practice more effective charity.

My suggestion: recognize altruism as part of a human conception of virtue that necessarily encompasses principles of prosocial behavior based on benevolence, mutual care, aggression control, and transcendent emotionality. We need to produce "saints," not mere consequentialist agents. That can be emotionally rewarding for many (as old monasticism was) and act as an actual motivating force. And for that, there are strategies available that can be selected by trial and error based on logical criteria of "effective altruism" and consequentialism.

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/uaGR6yhpEmdtgncuZ/altruism-and-minority-influence

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/7tjbCRCb6FSdCKgyP/leo-tolstoy-s-philosophy-altruism-and-non-violence

Very good post.

 Any rational understanding of human ethics must include the differences between the rational and emotional perception of morally evaluable facts by the human agent. An artificial mind might assess this inconsistency as invalidating the moral mandate, when it does not, so it must be informed of the peculiarities of human social behavior in this regard.

The evolutionary factor should be added: moral evolution, within the framework of cultural evolution, can and should create psychological mechanisms to gradually shorten the gap between the ideal and the real.

For instance the "solution" to the illegal immigration problem omits the entire point of seeking refuge from a country to begin with, that those refugees are hoping for a better life

I'm one of those who think that the problem of the enormous wealth inequality between rich and very poor countries—especially those in sub-Saharan Africa—is the current equivalent of what the fight against slavery was in the 18th and 19th centuries. It's an outrage that there are still people dying of hunger or malnutrition.

That said, many alarmists about "uncontrolled" immigration can also build up consequentialist arguments. I've read that they say that what the inmigrants invest in paying for their dangerous, more or less clandestine journeys to rich countries should be invested in their own countries to prosper economically in their own lands. So if we make it difficult for them to experience dangerous, expensive, and unprofitable "uncontrolled" emigration (it is said that most limit themselves to subsisting precariously in the rich countries where they arrive undocumented), we would be doing them a favor (consequentialism).

I think EA has some major problems especially when it gets into long-termism, and measuring extreme threats that are extremely unlikely against sure threats that are measurably bad.

If we start from the certain fact that moral evolution has existed, exists, and must continue to exist, the best consequentialist and long-termist calculation is to promote moral evolution. Improving moral behavior within the framework of cultural evolution would lead us to a "virtue ethics" that provides the best results in all areas that can be affected by the intentional, organized, and massive action of a humanity that has evolved morally in the sense of empathy, benevolence, rationality, and altruism (as effective as possible).

Attempts to improve moral behavior in an intelligent and organized way go back a long way: the monasticism invented by Buddhists, the "spiritual exercises" of the Stoics or Epicureans (there is a famous book by Pierre Hadot on this). Today we have many more resources in this regard.

Sigmund Freud, who was by no means a fool, thought that socialism would not improve human life because changing economic structures would not change moral nature. However, he himself admitted that there were psychological resources through which the most pressing human instincts (including the libido) could be manipulated to generate something resembling "holy love."

The best consequentialism is one that rationally analyzes the reality of the factors involved in any issue deemed a priority. If the priority is altruism, moral judgment must take into account the reality of the moral agent, which is human nature (the human being, the "cultural animal").

I agree with your clarifications and apologize for having misunderstood your consideration regarding the possibilities of moral evolution in the future.

My idea of "virtue ethics" is based on the consideration that the most valuable aspect of moral conduct is the motivating "intention" of the agent. The difference between "altruism" and "prosociality" lies precisely in this. It is possible for a virtuous person, well-intentioned in the sense of charity, benevolence, and altruistic action, to make a consequentialist miscalculation, but they will always be willing to be corrected.

In any of the texts on consequentialist ethics we know, we find examples and dilemmas that question the appropriateness of consequentialism.

Last year, thousands of African immigrants arrived in small boats to the Canary Islands (European Union). It is estimated that around ten thousand perished at sea in the attempt. CONSEQUENTIALIST SOLUTION: From now on, the Spanish navy will sink any immigrant ship that approaches the coast with cannon fire. After having murdered a thousand poor immigrants, terror will prevent any more ships from leaving the African coast: NINE THOUSAND LIVES WILL BE SAVED (the greatest good for the greatest number).

The question would be: does every consequentialist position on altruism lead to the moral improvement of society? I think not. 

A "virtue" approach, on the other hand, is unequivocal as long as the model of virtue is consistently altruistic. If I am virtuous, I will also try to do "the greatest good for the greatest number," but I will not overlook the fact that the fundamental objective is to spread a virtuous lifestyle as a cultural model. The main task, therefore, is to define the model of virtue and its viability as an alternative for cultural change.

Of course, I am not claiming that the Amish are a model of virtue. They are superstitious, traditionalist, and even suspected of serious cases of sexual abuse among them. But it is undeniable that their system of controlling aggressive behavior is an example of what can be achieved with cultural changes. Even more surprising when we know that their social system is based on small family farms and that there is economic inequality among them: the most common social environment for neighborly feuds, disputes, and brawls.

Brainwashing? Aren't we conditioned from childhood to be competitive, "assertive," to develop "self-respect," and personal independence?

All moral development begins with the emotional consideration of mutual relationships. The success of moral virtue consists in the emotional internalization of the abstract principles of morality. Historically, this has been achieved primarily through religious mechanisms (all secular liberalism is inherited from the Reformed Christianity of the nations of Northern Europe), but such mechanisms can be reinterpreted and adapted to a secular approach to altruism. The selection of psychological strategies to reach this goal would be achieved through a process of trial and error. We can draw on something from the Amish, something from the spiritual exercises of ancient times, something from cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy... even from Stanislavsky's "method acting."

In any case, no one is working today to develop a coherent altruistic virtue that could serve as a model for cultural change.

At least the objective idea of "effective altruism" is being worked on, albeit from the limited perspective of consequentialism. And this is a relatively recent movement... one that didn't exist before. Until recently, the only secular approach to social improvement was socialism: establishing social justice through legal coercion (and from there to "the end justifies the means" was only a short step...).

I'm afraid what's wrong with you is that, like any scholar of the 19th or 18th century, you believe that moral evolution has stopped right at the customs of your time

Where do you get this idea from?

Because you wrote this

Do you think that we can culturally evolve to not need any behavioural guard-rails, given that we are not robots, but rather evolved primates whose instincts were shaped for a much more dangerous environment? I mean, it would be nice to believe that, but I don't see much evidence for it.

The idea that moral evolution might one day lead us to dispense with criminal law (as well as give rise to an economic system based on altruism) is no more improbable than its opposite. And there is nothing in human nature to prevent it, since we now have evidence that human behavior is extremely susceptible to cultural influences.

It is assumed, of course, that there must be limits to this, and above all, we currently do not know the cultural mechanisms that allow us to control aggression and promote altruism. It is also true that, as far as I know, no one is working on it...

What if we seriously reflect on it?

There are enormous differences between the aggressiveness of certain societies, and we do not always understand the factors that make them so different. To give a well-known example, the famous Amish (now numbering 400,000) lack criminal law, judges, police, fines, or prisons. They "govern" themselves by consensus, most likely because, through trial and error, they have developed a preventive control of aggression in individuals based on a "psychological priming" (behavioral patterns). Another well-known phenomenon is that of homicidal offenders who suddenly undergo a religious conversion that transforms their antisocial behavior into prosocial behavior. There is no miracle here, but rather cultural factors that condition moral behavior.

A space dedicated to altruistic work like "Effective Altruism" should not ignore these facts and the possibilities of developing strategies to promote moral evolution. From a consequentialist perspective, there would be no greater advantage from a "cost-benefit" point of view. It's a bit like the difference in the 19th century between individual acts of charity in the conservative tradition and large-scale social policies such as social security, public education, etc. But now it wouldn't be a question of politics, but rather of rational strategies for moral evolution.

Consequentialism has the problem of focusing only on the products of human labor for the common good, and not so much on the productivity of the human factor of production of altruistic deeds ("virtue"). Twenty thousand altruists can save quite a few people from malaria in Africa, but a rational social movement for moral improvement that has an emotional impact on its members in a similar way to how compassionate religions have done so far could reach millions of people.

We shouldn't be ashamed to study some positive aspects of religious movements from a rational point of view. Evolution is "copy plus modification." 

There are many other factors that can influence human behavior to promote altruistic, non-aggressive, and enlightened societies. However, it seems to me that legislative (and political) changes, the mass education system, and the technology of the current capitalist economic system have indeed reached their limits.

Let's consider that a hundred years ago, an "effective altruist" might well have thought that the best way to do "the greatest good for the greatest number" would be to make the Marxist revolution triumph on a global scale.

But if one path closes, another may open.

Thank you very much for agreeing to a bit of discussion about the possibilities of moral evolution as a guide for ethical evaluations.

Of course, I admit that, in today's world (whether in Western European society or in Pakistan), judges and legislators need the most precise ethical criteria possible to elucidate moral dilemmas and priorities of social interest. I have no academic training in ethics, but I recently came across the expression "functional morality," which somewhat sums up the situation we find ourselves in when evaluating events with moral content. I know that some consider that in today's society, the evolution of morals is dictated by jurisprudence.

There is no law prohibiting cannibalism in the United Kingdom (nor bullfighting... something we do need in Spain—I am Spanish). Yes, there are laws against child abuse (I don't know if they exist in Afghanistan), but generally speaking, we all accept that customs change first (moral evolution, among other things), and then these changes (logically initially driven by influential minorities) become entrenched in society... and also in the laws.

When I consider that only "virtue ethics" is valid, I mean that, since human nature is immutable, a certain conception of moral perfection is viable (through future cultural changes). Kant, with all his deontology, was unable to overcome his prejudices against women or "inferior races." In the 21st century, I watch the terrible scenes from Gaza on television at lunchtime, and although they disgust me, they don't take away my appetite... as would stumbling upon an Auto-da-Fé in my town square, similar to those performed in the 17th century.

I'm afraid what's wrong with you is that, like any scholar of the 19th or 18th century, you believe that moral evolution has stopped right at the customs of your time, and you lack the perspective to imagine that there will be a 23rd and a 24th century. And that is truly naive.

I object that we need laws to control antisocial instincts.

Antisocial instincts come in all forms, for example, cannibalism, child sexual abuse, or the public practice of torture. Although we have laws for these, such antisocial acts are so rare that in Western societies they fall under the purview of psychiatric pathology rather than criminal law. However, all these behaviors existed in human cultures of the past, and it wasn't criminal laws that made them disappear, but rather cultural change (moral evolution).

Furthermore, today we engage in such antisocial acts as spending money in fancy restaurants, voting for politicians who preach hate, or having a talented doctor make money performing cosmetic surgery. These types of behaviors mean that many unfortunate people die prematurely from hunger or disease in poor countries. And no law prohibits them.

So there is only one valid ethic: virtue ethics... as long as it is practiced in a morally evolved cultural environment where antisocial instincts are controlled by behavioral habits and not by penal laws. There is no doubt that cultural evolution (moral evolution) has meant that we no longer need laws to prevent the practice of cannibalism, nor to schedule spectacles of human torture (although in Spain some animals are publicly tortured), nor for many other horrible things that were once part of our customs.

What is the limit of moral evolution? How can we promote it as efficiently as possible to the point of eradicating a non-altruistic human culture in the future? That should be a question that should concern us more.

In any case, we will make no progress if we assume that we will always need laws to control antisocial instincts, when we know they can be culturally controlled.

Thank you very much for your attention to my proposal. I know that new ideas are difficult to understand (especially if you're not very good at explaining them), and particularly when something as unusual as promoting new ideological movements (let's say, "utopian").

I just want to make a few brief clarifications:

your vision of creating a rational 'moral elite'

  Moral evolution initiatives in the sense of pacifism, altruism, and benevolence stemming from monastic structures do not seek to create elites, as they are situated outside the conventional world. They can also be referred to as community initiatives of "witness" (for example, the case of Anabaptist communities or Quakers). However, associations such as Freemasonry, Opus Dei, and even initiatives associated with EA, such as "80,000 Hours," are initiatives to create elites. They do agree that they are influential minorities, in one way or another (all social change is logically set in motion by minorities).

Your ideas about intentionally shaping prosocial norms through communities

I don't propose "norms," ​​but rather styles of behavior based on internalized ethical values. A non-coercive prosociality.

All activities based on altruism can be complementary, although dilemmas about priorities always arise.

I understand the importance given to "long-term" issues and the alarm created by issues related to AI. Unfortunately, not all of us are sufficiently prepared to grasp the magnitude of such threats to the common good.

In my opinion, the essential factor for the progress of civilization is moral progress, and moral progress occurs through social psychological mechanisms that are often more accessible to the understanding of people motivated by empathy and altruism, and that falls more within the realm of "wisdom."

Thank you very much for your interest in my proposal.

My idea of ​​an "ideology of behavior" seems to me to be the logical conclusion of the civilizing process that led certain moralistic religions (the so-called "compassionate religions") to end up prioritizing conceptions of moral motivation with behavioral implications (benevolent and altruistic behavior) that always involved the internalization of emotions associated with prosocial symbolism: individual soul, charity, grace, compassion... this is the Christian terminology, but the compassionate religious cultures of the East have their own terms.

The goal is always moral evolution. Use certain symbolic stimuli associated with non-aggressive, empathetic, benevolent, and altruistic behavioral motivations. "Producing saints."

I can't think of a better way to produce effective altruism.

Historically, the emergence of cohesive subcultural minorities has always had great power to influence lifestyle changes from a moral perspective.

Monasticism was an invention of Buddhism, although it later gained great importance in the West. The puritanical subcultures of Reformed Christianity also played a role.

In my opinion, the creation of a morally influential minority that promotes an extremely prosocial lifestyle and, for the first time, develops based on principles of rationality could have a profound impact on the conditions of today's society. Many 19th-century thinkers already realized that if astrology evolved into astronomy, and alchemy into chemistry, why couldn't the religions of the past have a functional and coherent equivalent in the enlightened world?

The idea of ​​an "influential minority," by the way, is not foreign to "Effective Altruism." It appears, for example, in Schuber and Caviola's book "Effective Altruism and the Human Mind."

Instead of trying to reach out indiscriminately to the population at large, outreach efforts could be specifically targeted at those who are more open to effective altruism.
Who are these people who find effective altruism appealing? What psychological traits make people more positively inclined toward effective altruism? (p. 120)

I think we can be ambitious and set a bigger goal: if we can locate individuals with a greater propensity to perform altruistic acts, we can also locate individuals with a propensity to improve their behavior to the limits of extreme prosociality. These would be the "believers" in the behavioral ideology. Individuals rationally motivated to correct their behavior in order to achieve a clear goal (extreme prosociality, "saintliness"). Didn't the people in "Alcoholics Anonymous" do something similar about changing behavior almost a hundred years ago? And they certainly didn't need professional psychologists to do so. They relied on clear motivation, clarity of objectives... and a lucid process of development through trial and error.

I mentioned another example from the past: the Tolstoyan movement. It failed because it was poorly conceived and poorly organized, but it demonstrated that it was possible to create a non-political social movement based on principles of extreme prosocial behavior and not necessarily linked to any belief on the supernatural.

What are the motivations for altruistic action? What are the mechanisms for internalizing prosocial behavioral values? What psychological incentives and rewards do those who undertake a process of change and renunciation based on an altruistic ideal receive? How are ideologies created, cultivated, and flourished?

In our time, we have historical evidence of all kinds. We already know many things, and although science can advise us, this should be a matter of individual motivation and shared wisdom.

As an initial formula, I would suggest a "monastic" organization for the rational pursuit of an altruistic lifestyle. An altruistic lifestyle implies controlling aggression, cultivating rationality and empathy, scientific curiosity, and, above all, developing benevolence in behavior. In my view, such a development would not necessarily be less attractive to many young people today than monasticism was in the Middle Ages.

And, above all, keep in mind: unlike political ideologies or mass religions, a monastic structure only seeks to attract a minority. One person in a thousand? We would then be talking about eight million people with 100% active altruistic behavior!

Don't you think that effective moral progress must be based on rational strategies for internalizing prosocial values?

I mean, rather than better laws (political reformism) or educational improvements. Or worthwhile initiatives without their own cultural value, such as EA-type humanitarian activities.

What traditional "compassionate religions" did in the past could be done with much greater effect through a new ideology focused on improving behavior.

It has never been tried, and there may be viable formulas.

Thanks for your attention