In my opinion, if we consider the simplest definition of Effective Altruism (EA), which is 'think about the most effective way to give to charity,' it differs from utilitarianism in a couple of ways:
Firstly, it's more pragmatic because it acknowledges our personal biases. Second, it's an individual practice, unlike utilitarianism, which is typically associated with broader societal or governmental actions.
I really appreciate this approach to altruism. It doesn’t force a moral standard on others. I like practicing it on a small scale, recognizing my biases. Just the act of thinking about how to best help my community is better than giving randomly. This approach also helps to see the world as a place with more love than what we often see in the news.
However, I have concerns about the more widespread version of EA, which seems to be about gaining as much money and power as possible while appearing altruistic. This, in my view, is more akin to a personality disorder, like narcissism, than to utilitarianism.
I've been using the term EA to describe this, but it might not align with what others think EA is. For me, it's a personal habit I try to maintain, but I don't let it define who I am.
I guess I fundamentally don't think charity is the right way to solve social injustice. If you went around giving out blankets to antebellum American slaves, I guess you're helping the specific person you're handing the blanket to, but are you helping with the actual problem? After all, the problem facing the slave is not that they don't have enough things, but rather, that they don't have enough rights. Until you have the rights, no amount of material palliatives will ever save you. So that's why I didn't really go for EA when I first heard of it.
Now, we have Sam Bankman-Fried's version, which is at least intellectually rigorous: if you can make billions (through scams) then give those billions (eventually) to charity, are you not morally obligated to do so? At which point I am somewhere between laughing and crying.
Firstly, it's more pragmatic because it acknowledges our personal biases. Second, it's an individual practice, unlike utilitarianism, which is typically associated with broader societal or governmental actions.
I really appreciate this approach to altruism. It doesn’t force a moral standard on others. I like practicing it on a small scale, recognizing my biases. Just the act of thinking about how to best help my community is better than giving randomly. This approach also helps to see the world as a place with more love than what we often see in the news.
However, I have concerns about the more widespread version of EA, which seems to be about gaining as much money and power as possible while appearing altruistic. This, in my view, is more akin to a personality disorder, like narcissism, than to utilitarianism.
I've been using the term EA to describe this, but it might not align with what others think EA is. For me, it's a personal habit I try to maintain, but I don't let it define who I am.