Would you recommend a piece explaining what, exactly, EA *is*? I feel like people talk about it as a subculture more than a moral philosophy - if it’s the latter, it sometimes seems like it’s “You should do the thing that alleviates the most units of pain per unit of effort expended, unless you shouldn’t, in which case don’t.”
Many definitions talk about EA as a project rather than a philosophy, and I think it makes sense because you can participate in EA from a variety of philosophical perspectives. I think this article by Richard Y. Chappel on "beneficentrism" is one of the best attempts to sketch the minimal philosophical core of EA: https://www.goodthoughts.blog/p/beneficentrism.
Amusingly, I’ve been grappling with this on a personal level in my struggle to understand grace. My current understanding is that *all* duties (including obvious ones like “loving my family”) are at some level impossible to solve, and thus earn us a “karmic debt” we are unable to repay. Cultural (or even Biblical!) morality is at some level a “get out of jail card” for the “hardness of our heart” by pretending certain ethical obligations simply don’t exist.
I am starting to think a more Christ-centered approach is to *start* by accepting that my very existence is a “debt that cannot be repaid.” And that rather than arguing about duties, seek instead to be growing in grace and sensitivity to the Holy Spirit, in order to break the cycle of scarcity and separation.
What do you think? Is that too far removed from the “reality” of Effective Altruism to be useful?
I don't think that's too far removed, if I'm understanding you correctly.
One thing that engaging with EA does is that it forces you to grapple with the enormity of suffering in the world and the fact that you are not helping others as much as you could. Even granting responsibilities to family and others close to us, the vast majority of us are still not doing even close to as much good as we could.
People interested in EA deal with this tension in various ways, but I think we have some unique advantages here as Christians. And I think a confrontation with the limits of our love for others can be a very healthy thing spiritually, if it causes us to strive ahead towards repentance, a pursuit of theosis, and of (more) perfect love for others instead of paralysis or giving up. The latter is a real danger, too.
Would you recommend a piece explaining what, exactly, EA *is*? I feel like people talk about it as a subculture more than a moral philosophy - if it’s the latter, it sometimes seems like it’s “You should do the thing that alleviates the most units of pain per unit of effort expended, unless you shouldn’t, in which case don’t.”
To be clear I’m sure a lot of this is down to my misunderstanding and mostly coming to EA through articles responding to critiques of it.
Defining EA is indeed a bit tricky. There is no one official definition. Effectivealtruism.org defines EA as "a project that aims to find the best ways to help others, and put them into practice." I think the whole What Is Effective Altruism article is worth reading https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-effective-altruism. The article by Pumer and MacAskill discussing the definition of EA is also good: https://philpapers.org/rec/PUMEA.
Many definitions talk about EA as a project rather than a philosophy, and I think it makes sense because you can participate in EA from a variety of philosophical perspectives. I think this article by Richard Y. Chappel on "beneficentrism" is one of the best attempts to sketch the minimal philosophical core of EA: https://www.goodthoughts.blog/p/beneficentrism.
Amusingly, I’ve been grappling with this on a personal level in my struggle to understand grace. My current understanding is that *all* duties (including obvious ones like “loving my family”) are at some level impossible to solve, and thus earn us a “karmic debt” we are unable to repay. Cultural (or even Biblical!) morality is at some level a “get out of jail card” for the “hardness of our heart” by pretending certain ethical obligations simply don’t exist.
I am starting to think a more Christ-centered approach is to *start* by accepting that my very existence is a “debt that cannot be repaid.” And that rather than arguing about duties, seek instead to be growing in grace and sensitivity to the Holy Spirit, in order to break the cycle of scarcity and separation.
What do you think? Is that too far removed from the “reality” of Effective Altruism to be useful?
I don't think that's too far removed, if I'm understanding you correctly.
One thing that engaging with EA does is that it forces you to grapple with the enormity of suffering in the world and the fact that you are not helping others as much as you could. Even granting responsibilities to family and others close to us, the vast majority of us are still not doing even close to as much good as we could.
People interested in EA deal with this tension in various ways, but I think we have some unique advantages here as Christians. And I think a confrontation with the limits of our love for others can be a very healthy thing spiritually, if it causes us to strive ahead towards repentance, a pursuit of theosis, and of (more) perfect love for others instead of paralysis or giving up. The latter is a real danger, too.
Love the way you bring theosis into this! Have you written anything on the intersection of theosis and EA?
Not yet, but perhaps some day - that would be a very interesting topic!
And if you went to start an Effective Theosis movement, sign me up! I’d pay $30/month for that…