idea21
Posts 10
Comments54
EA is a unique community in that its belief is based on a behavioral trait, rather than a set of ideological guidelines that give rise to certain behaviors.
If EA had an ideology, it would be an "ideology of behavior." Altruistic behavior is natural in human beings, just as other antisocial behaviors are also natural. Repressing some behavioral traits and empowering others is what a cultural model does.
The fact that some people can act altruistically and make significant sacrifices based on a moral autonomy constituted exclusively from rational ideation seems exceptional, without many precedents in the history of human ideological thought (deontology). It might be an unhelpful (not very utilitarian) approach if we need millions of altruistic donors: people motivated to change their lifestyles and make material sacrifices.
Perhaps it would be worth reflecting on the precedents of the ideologies that have led so many to sacrifice themselves for a particular vision of the common good... none of these visions are as solidly grounded in the real possibilities of human nature as EA itself.
For example: Alcoholics Anonymous saw the inability to overcome certain addictions as an evil (for oneself and for others). They then created, through trial and error, community psychological strategies to help those who were motivated to improve their behavior and also to help others themselves. NOT DONATING is also an evil. It is an evil for others, our fellow human beings, who need our help... and it is also an evil for us who allow ourselves to be carried away by a conformist and conventional lifestyle that has been imposed on us.
The problem with heteronomous ethics (based on lists of moral mandates, similar to the Decalogue) is that it is especially inadequate for promoting altruism. Altruism is, by its very nature, a product of compassionate motivation (not mere prosociality) and should therefore be encompassed within the cultivation of a lifestyle—virtue ethics.
Antiquity shows us that the basis for the development of compassionate behaviors lies in the internalization of emotional concepts that evoke moral autonomy, such as the Christian concepts of "charity," "faith," "Grace," and "Holy Spirit." Eastern cultures use other similar symbolic resources.
No one seriously considers that altruistic action lacks personal interests for the agent. The altruistic agent acts to obtain emotional rewards. These are of various types, and this debate, unfortunately, doesn't appear much in this forum; and it should because if we don't develop the question of altruistic motivation, we will have difficulty in order to increase the number of altruistic agents.
My personal opinion is that the best way to develop altruistic motivation is to consider altruistic action in the context of a lifestyle—a virtue—of zero aggression and one that stimulates impulses of benevolence, empathy, rationality, empathy... We need "saints." A lifestyle of "saintliness" can be more attractive than mere altruistic action motivated by a deontological sense of duty (à la Kant, à la Seneca) or, worse still, by the feeling of guilt for not doing everything possible to remedy the suffering around us.
And don't take capitalism seriously. What creates wealth is science and technology, not capitalism.
I don’t think people should be anonymous cog slaves all-consumed by abstract guilt.
Ethical motivation is the key to moral progress. Feeling guilty for not acting correctly, feeling ashamed (before whom?) for not avoiding evil.
Is it deontology? Stoic ethics was largely based on this.
From a utilitarian point of view, any motivation is good as long as it produces the greatest good for the greatest number.
The problem is that the motivation system currently established by the EA community doesn't seem to be effective enough. And it's completely contrary to the cost-benefit principle not to explore other options.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, at the height of class struggle, the justice/charity opposition was resolved with the paradigm that charity was merely an alibi masking the systemic oppression of the upper classes.
The failure of socialism—but not of liberal democracy with a social market economy—now provides an opportunity for a rationalist and non-traditional conception of charity.
This implies charity as an economic dimension of cultural change—moral evolution. In a non-political sense, this is also revolutionary and should be expressed in the form of a social movement with explicit ideological content (anarcho-pacifist, basically... but this requires an ideology of human behavior itself). This remains to be done, but a rational conception of charity as a driver of social change is already a great step forward.
I think this is at least moderate evidence that class struggle (amongst other things) was important to the growth of democracy
From the moment oppressed classes existed, they have always sought to free themselves from their suffering. One might wonder why they never succeeded—gradually—until the arrival of the democracies of the 19th century. It was technically easier for the oppressing classes to exercise their power with modern technology—weapons, propaganda. It was not the oppressed—developing a political strategy—but the oppressors—largely renouncing their brutality—who changed and allowed for democracy and greater social justice.
Let's say that the oppressing classes evolved ethically, "seeking the salvation of their souls," for example.
EA is a very good idea for cultural innovation precisely because it challenges socialism. It wasn't class struggle that enabled humanitarian advances in an increasingly technological society, but the moral evolution of citizens (usually upper-class) who gradually rejected the "systemic violence" of class society. The social improvements of the disadvantaged classes were merely concessions by the oppressor class, rather than "conquests of the oppressed" (Spartacus gained nothing by rebelling).
EA doesn't require "class consciousness"... but rather "awareness" of its own value as a moral innovation and its significance.
Just a suggestion about "flourishing": upon abandoning the "state of nature" in prehistory, human beings entered a process of cultural evolution that can also be called the "civilizing process."
This process basically consists of controlling, through cultural means, the aggressiveness characteristic of all higher mammals: a necessary instinct in the struggle for scarce resources and one that is part of the evolutionary factors. Human beings don't need aggression because, thanks to cooperation and intelligence, they can achieve abundance. In an economy of scarcity, aggression is necessary. In an economy of abundance, it's merely a hindrance.
"Flourishing," therefore, can only be the definitive control of human aggressiveness.
JJ Rousseau told us that the human "state of nature" was harmonious and non-aggressive: false, because social mammals are ALWAYS aggressive (against outsiders and within their own group). The entire error of Marxism and class struggle was based on this illogical view (the end justified the means, for them).
Hobbes told us that human beings are aggressive (like all animals) and are also INCORRECTIBLE.
There are many reasons to consider (gradual control of aggression throughout the development of civilization) that controlling aggression through cultural means is possible to limits we cannot estimate today.
A movement like EA, based on unlimited altruism, must be consistent and engage in cultural innovation initiatives for controlling aggression. We must view altruism as a consequence of this process of controlling aggression. That should be the true "flourishing."
"Controlling aggression through cultural means": basically, strategies to internalize moral values of prosociality, acting as "artificial instincts", that allow for non-aggressive, rational, empathetic, benevolent, and altruistic behavior.
What strategies are available? Many: ideology, arts (symbolic narratives), behavioral practices, scientific and technological development... SOCIAL MOVEMENTS.
EA is a social movement.
Magnificent work on the motivation for altruistic action. If there is no motivation, there is no action, then the analysis of motivation should be a fundamental issue in any utilitarian approach. But this issue is apparently overlooked because it is taken for granted: instead of increasing the basis for motivation, the emphasis is on how to take advantage of existing motivation, regardless of its psychological origin and how to increase it.
I do believe total utilitarianism is the most ideal moral philosophy, and maximizing my own positive impact in expectation, is my main focus in life
Great. But by opposing altruistic action to happiness, we are overlooking the implications that both altruistic motivation at a given moment and what could be a strategy to increase that motivation (and thus a plausible increase in action) can have for the subjective experience of the altruistic agent.
if I were trying to live completely according to utilitarianism, my risk of burnout would be higher, even though I would consciously try to avoid it.
Are there strategies for psychological change that can simultaneously increase altruistic motivation and happiness?
I believe that in history we have approximate precedents for organized altruistic behaviors that, within the framework of subcultures practicing virtue, also facilitated subjective experiences of "fulfillment" that were attractive to a significant number of individuals. During the Middle Ages, monks and nuns comprised more than 1% of the population in Western Europe. Obviously, I'm not making an exact equivalence between these types of behaviors (secular altruism today and religious altruism then), but there is an important commonality: we are all human beings, we choose unconventional behavior, altruism plays a fundamental part in economic life, there is a shared ideological basis in a community... and we aspire to happiness... which can be achieved through many paths.
From a utilitarian perspective, a "monasticism of Effective Altruism" (whatever specific subcultural form it took), if it reached 1% of the population, would have an unimaginable impact on alleviating avoidable suffering worldwide.
Isn't the matter even worth discussing?
What is the current percentage of people capable of making an altruistic commitment like Jens´ relative to the population of Western Europe alone? Is it increasing?
I have read the work on "autognosis" and find any reflection on instinct control, which is the essence of civilization, hopeful.
Certainly, in the West, the Stoic approach is insurmountable, as it implies individual self-control to allow for the common good. In my opinion, this is the basis of EA philosophy. And its greatest weakness.
The exposition of different strategies for instinct control is very interesting, but it reveals the same limitation of Stoicism: it views moral action as an individual isolated from social relations, which is inconsistent (we are social beings); It doesn't question cultural models; there is no ethical content inherent to examining the human condition (instincts of all kinds, and how to control them).
Methodologies can vary; they are selected through trial and error. The important thing is to establish the target to be achieved. For the Stoics, the State had to be served (a just State... as a consequence of it being governed by just men).
That is a mistake. Reading many of the instincts of Homo Sapiens (tribalism, the desire for dominance, for example) as "antisocial" should imply a "prosocial" model. This can only be the one that has, as an economic consequence, "effective altruism."
The text ignores the cultural mechanisms of instinct control, developed through "trial and error" over centuries and which allow for the internalization of moral values. A prosocial ideological model must be based on principles of internalizing behavioral patterns.
I'll give you a well-known example. The famous Anabaptist Amish community is made up of 400,000 people, small-scale farmers. They don't need government, judges, police, or prisons to govern themselves. How do they do it? Do they use Stoicism, behaviorism a la Skinner or Watson, do they use autognosis, do they rely on Jung, or on cognitive-behavioral therapy?
They certainly don't base themselves on Christianity or the Bible, because 99% of Christians—like them—do need judges, police, prisons, fines, and coercive governments...