Thanks for writing this up. I'm convinced by your responses to the efficiency, efficacy, and partisanship objections.
I worry, however, about the idea of influence itself. My worry is about a particular form of influence: lobbying. To try influence a government via lobbying is to try to change policy via non-democratic means, in ways that are not accountable to citizens. EA wants to operate within the side-constraints of rights, which includes (or I think, should include) respecting citizens' rights to self-determination. By attempting to sidestep the democratic process, EA risks violating this right.
This is especially worrisome to me because EA's broadly consequentialist philosophy is not shared by most people. Even if commonsense morality is wrong, and consequentialism is right, we might be wrong to shape policy according to consequentialist principles. And it would seem additionally wrong to persuade governments to use their citizens' resources on causes that citizens themselves don't endorse, or aren't even aware of the reasons for or against. The idea of public reason in liberal political philosophy expresses this view: that free and equal citizens deserve justification for the rules and institutions that shape their lives. Because lobbying subverts justification, it seems to contravene this principle of equality.
It's true that EA would just be playing the same game as other interest groups, but I'm not sure that is what we should be doing. Better to influence governments through the front end, e.g. by changing the public's ideas and perception, as you detail in Appendix 1.
Thanks for writing this up. I'm convinced by your responses to the efficiency, efficacy, and partisanship objections.
I worry, however, about the idea of influence itself. My worry is about a particular form of influence: lobbying. To try influence a government via lobbying is to try to change policy via non-democratic means, in ways that are not accountable to citizens. EA wants to operate within the side-constraints of rights, which includes (or I think, should include) respecting citizens' rights to self-determination. By attempting to sidestep the democratic process, EA risks violating this right.
This is especially worrisome to me because EA's broadly consequentialist philosophy is not shared by most people. Even if commonsense morality is wrong, and consequentialism is right, we might be wrong to shape policy according to consequentialist principles. And it would seem additionally wrong to persuade governments to use their citizens' resources on causes that citizens themselves don't endorse, or aren't even aware of the reasons for or against. The idea of public reason in liberal political philosophy expresses this view: that free and equal citizens deserve justification for the rules and institutions that shape their lives. Because lobbying subverts justification, it seems to contravene this principle of equality.
It's true that EA would just be playing the same game as other interest groups, but I'm not sure that is what we should be doing. Better to influence governments through the front end, e.g. by changing the public's ideas and perception, as you detail in Appendix 1.