[kr0bat]

Does EA not believe in objectively better recipients?

    MacAskill writes that QALYs can be used to decide which charitable causes to prioritise: faced with a choice between spending $10,000 to save a 20-year-old from blindness or the same amount on antiretroviral therapy for a 30-year-old with Aids – a treatment that will improve their life and extend it by ten years – MacAskill argues it would be better to perform the sight-saving surgery, as the 20-year-old can expect to live another 50 years. He acknowledges that QALYs are an “imperfect”, “contested” measure but sees them as mostly good enough.

[HDThoreaun]

MacAskill does, but he's doing applied ethics here. EA is a normative ethical framework. You are free to disagree with his objective function and still be EA as long as you are thinking about how to maximize your own.