Why I don't trust Effective Altruists:https://twitter.com/alessabocchi/status/1009732858238382080 …
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Yes, I like the basic idea of evaluating charity with more math and making sure they are legitimate... but I think the movement incentivizes psychopaths who would rationalize that they are overall doing good because they have donated even though they act in harmful ways.
And the point in my original tweet: some Effective Altruists would kill all of humanity if they calculate that their metric of insect or AI suffering would reduce by more than the value of human lives. Or that everyone should die because life is suffering.
Effective altruism is not all about saving lives, it's also about reducing suffering. Suffering of insects, I don't think so, but of animals, I'm sure it is.
There's a certain movement called "effective altruism"... but I don't necessarily believe that they are the only ones who know how to be effective in doing altruism. Also, who decides what's the best way to define or measure what is "effective"?
I agree. I don't like the expression "effective altruism". "Altruism" is altruism, rooted in the very natural and mimetic "empathy". If you feel it, you seek to be "effective" but to be "effective" without any feeling seems to me somewhat monstrous.
Wasn't it E O Wilson who invented the term effective altruist? Anybody know what he meant by it? I've read his stuff on ants and on the meaning of life but never really understood that concept.
Not sure. I see it used mostly by utilitarians. I think it's good to apply some utilitarian methods to charity, but I strongly disagree with using utilitarianism as an universal ethical framework.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.