Conversation

If you take his worldview seriously, some stories associated with effective altruism look a bit naive. 1. Light on history, many EAs seem unaware how Christian their values are. "Secular ethics" is not obviously a thing.
1
11
Nietzsche, Bernard Williams & are doubtful about secular ethics. Parfit—it seems—was not. But he read a lot of history: I'm tempted to try a Straussian reading of the one of the most literal philosophers...
2
2
2. Light on history & heavy on philosophy, many EAs have a surprisingly non-naturalistic picture of reason. The "laws of reason" are probably not universal or timeless. They are contingent, evolving. They are underwritten by coercion, violence and adaptive pressure.
1
9
Moral realists sometimes say "if you don't believe X, I can't reason with you". That's the beginning of coercion. Sometimes physical violence. If you act "irrationally" in a way that an influential philosopher strongly disapproves of, you'll be locked up, or worse.
1
3
It's usually good that you get locked up, but the reason is not that you violated a universal moral norm. It's that you violated a contingent local norm that powerful & (hopefully) wise people endorse. Group acts to uphold its norms, enjoy gains from coordination, avoid chaos.
1
4
Stability requires homogeneity on many important dimensions. Thomas Hobbes, among others, recognised that homogeneity is partly built on autocratic decision and enforcement. This dynamic caused many of the worst tragedies in history, and will continue to do so.
1
2
3. Many stories about effective altruism—like many philosophers—seem weak on anthropology, social epistemology & psychology. They neglect the role of imitation; ressentiment, envy & other psychopathologies; the conditions that set the terms of peace.
1
3