[eddsh1994]

> But what in the philosophy of EA really disallows it

Because most people who are willing to donate x% of their salary to charity tends to be decent people? Apart from that, there's tons of fundermental EA posts and writings that talk about how EA cannot be an 'ends justify the means' philosophy to donating. Sadly this SBF shit has really corrupted the core message which is to be skeptical of charities and view them like investments, picking the best one for QALY per $, and valuing all lives equally. I don't even like the futurist side of EA because I personally can't put the value of a hypothetical person above someone who's sick today and focus on global health & animal welfare. Honestly the core point of EA is imo very hard to discredit aside from longtermism.

[emodendroket]

> Because most people who are willing to donate x% of their salary to charity tends to be decent people?

I’m curious if you would accept the claim that a regular churchgoer is unlikely to act immorally, because I can’t see any difference in principle, down to the “donating a portion of your salary” part.

[skinnymuch]

I’d be interested in your response to emodendroket

[tomrod]

> There's tons of fundermental EA posts and writings that talk about how EA cannot be an 'ends justify the means' philosophy to donating.

This is at odds with its core adoption of utilitarianism, which is the movement's fundamental justification. Utilitarianism is sort of textbook "sounds nice on paper, works crappy in practice" outcome.

[eddsh1994]

That's because they're not the same thing and all the press EA has recently received is completely butchering the much more nuanced message.

It's covered briefly here https://www.effectivealtruism.org/faqs-criticism-objections

[tomrod]

Pushback: the press has gotten this correct, and EA's attempts at distinguishing itself as something else have failed.

[eddsh1994]

How can the press be correct about what something is, when that something has since its inception been both vocally and actively different? Even going back to Singers books that sort of kicked this all off its specifically said to be different to utilitarianism. Most advocates of EA say they're not utilitarian. I'm saying I'm not utilitarian. EA organizations actions are clearly not utilitarian in general.

I don't really know how to defend EA as not Utilitarian beyond that, except saying take a look at some EA-based books or blog posts that aren't from the last month and decide for yourself!

[tomrod]

> except saying take a look at some EA-based books or blog posts that aren't from the last month and decide for yourself!

Many have, including the press, hence why the press says its utilitarianism reskinned! :)

[eddsh1994]

If you're genuine about learning more to have a balanced view I really do recommend https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qslo4-DpzPs. This to me is a good representation of what EA is and is challenged by someone in a sensible way.