Are EA billionaire philanthropists actually effective in their 'altruism'? (spoilers: no)
11mon 9d ago by awful.systems/u/Lessthan3 in sneerclub@awful.systems from bobjacobs.substack.com
Effective Altruism is just code for technofeudalism.
Free Market Altruism
Utilitarianism for people who think the humanities are pointless
The Peter Singer EA concept is incredible solid and well argued, such a shame it's been stolen by grifters
who is this peter singer fellow? Sounds like a great and unproblematic man. Please tell us more of his teachings.
Didn't he sing Little Boxes?
Not sure on that but I think he’s related to Sabrina Carpenter. Source, this line from Espresso:
I'm working late, 'cause I'm a Singer
Don't know anything about him as a person, but his writing on veganism and EA is some of the most concise and convincing modern moral philosophy I've read.
Clearly formulated, with clear assumptions and solid arguments and conclusions built on them, making it easy to critique without having studied moral philosophy.
oh wow, convincing moral philosophy you say? brb adjusting my priors
(e: the rationalwiki links are probably an even better overview)
I'd be genuinely interested in an elaboration. Reading the article, the fundamental issue seems to be that he's an idealist utilitarian who opposes racism and animal suffering in the wrong way?
The article concludes that
Of course, there are plenty of good reasons to become a vegetarian, to advocate for better treatment for animals, or to oppose factory farming.
But I genuinely haven't seen such reasons which do not ultimately end up in some form of Singer's argument that suffering implies moral value. Do you have a link exploring it further?
the fundamental issue seems to be that he's an idealist utilitarian who opposes racism and animal suffering in the wrong way
don't worry, he's just a misunderstood good guy
Let's do veganism now. I'm allowed to do this because I still remember what lentil burgers taste like from when I dated a vegan at university. So, as with most vegans, Singer is blocked by the classical counting paradoxes from declaring that a certain number of eukaryotic cells makes something morally inedible, and the standard list of counterexamples works just fine for him. Also, I hear he eats shellfish, and geoducks are bigger than e.g. chicks or kittens (or whatever else we might not want to eat.) I don't know how he'd convince me that a SCOBY is fundamentally not deserving of the same moral insight either; I think we just do it by convention to avoid the cosmic horror of thinking how many yeast cells must die to make a loaf of bread, and most practicing vegans aren't even willing to pray for all the bugs that they accidentally squish.
I agree with everything else he puts forward, but it boils down to buying organic-farmed food and discouraging factory farming. Singer is heavy on sentiment but painfully light on biology.
As I understand his argument, it goes
- If you can suffer, you have moral value
- We have an obligation to not cause suffering to beings with moral value
- Some animals can suffer, therefore they have moral value, and we have an obligation to not cause suffering to them
You can then of course ask whether yeast can suffer, which we don't have any evidence of, but you're welcome to stop eating yeast if you feel morally obliged to anyway. Lack of evidence doesn't mean we know they don't suffer. But for the animals where we have convincing evidence that they experience suffering, such as most intelligent mammals, we all have a clear moral obligation to stop causing them harm.
Counting cells doesn't really enter the argument. Evidence of suffering does, which is not just about sentiment.
The inability to draw a perfect distinction between beings that can suffer and those who cannot doesn't stop us from identifying cases clearly on either side of that line.
What Singer eats doesn't really matter for the argument.
You now have to argue that oxidative stress isn't suffering. Biology does not allow for humans to divide the world into the regions where suffering can be experienced and regions where it is absent. (The other branch contradicts the lived experience of anybody who has actually raised a sourdough starter; it is a living thing which requires food, water, and other care to remain homeostatic, and which changes in flavor due to environmental stress.)
Worse, your framing fails to meet one of the oldest objections to Singer's position, one which I still consider a knockout: you aren't going to convince the cats to stop eating intelligent mammals, and evidence suggests that cats suffer when force-fed a vegan diet.
When you come to Debate Club, make sure that your arguments are actually well-lubed and won't squeak when you swing them. You've tried to clumsily replay Singer's arguments without understanding their issues and how rhetoric has evolved since then. I would suggest watching some old George Carlin reruns; the man was a powerhouse of rhetoric.
this is not debate club
Thanks! As I've been taught, this isn't actually debate club, so I'll stop swinging my squeaky arguments and leave you to your sneering.
Singer's original EA argument, concerning the Bengal famine, has two massive holes in the argument, one of which survives to his simplified setup. I'm going to explain because it's funny; I'm not sure if you've been banned yet.
First, in the simplified setup, Singer says: there is a child drowning in the river! You must jump into the river, ruining your clothes, or else the child will drown. Further, there's no time for debate; if you waste time talking, then you forfeit the child. My response is to grab Singer by the belt buckle and collar and throw him into the river, and then strip down and save the child, ignoring whatever happens to Singer. My reasoning is that I don't like epistemic muggers and I will make choices that punish them in order to dissuade them from approaching me, but I'll still save the child afterwards. In terms of real life, it was a good call to prosecute SBF regardless of any good he may have done.
Second, in the Bangladesh setup, Singer says: everybody must donate to one specific charity because the charity can always turn more donations into more delivered food. Accepting the second part, there's a self-reference issue in the second part: if one is an employee of the charity, do they also have to donate? If we do the case analysis and discard the paradoxical cases, we are left with the repugnant conclusion: everybody ought to not just donate their money to the charity, but also all of their labor, at the cheapest prices possible while not starving themselves. Maybe I'm too much of a communist, but I'd rather just put rich peoples' heads on pikes instead and issue a food guarantee.
It's worth remembering that the actual famine was mostly a combination of failures of local government and also the USA withholding food due to Bangladesh trading with Cuba; maybe Singer's hand-wringing over the donation strategies of wealthy white moderates is misplaced.
There is a genocide going on right now in Gaza. Has Singer, the great utilitarian, said anything about how the common man should act to stop it?
Is it more effective to protest or block ports or destroy weaponry? Do we have a moral obligation to overthrow governments supporting genocide, in particular if that government is in our country? If we come across one of the perpetrators of the genocide do we have a moral obligation to do something?
Or are these all to uncomfortable questions, while the donation habits of the middle class is comfortable questions?
I have no idea what Peter Singer has to say about Gaza. I haven't heard anything decisive about what the most effective way to help stop the genocide is, I don't think there is much evidence on the matter right now. Based on EA I'd say do as much as you can, but don't neglect the possibly more effective causes like malaria nets and direct giving in the meantime.
Is your argument that Singer's philosophical arguments are fallacious because he hasn't delivered a guide to how to help the Palestinians? Because I don't think that works out.
If your argument is that he himself is a poor philosopher or activist for that reason, then sure, I have nothing against that.
My argument is that if he hasn't spoken out on Gaza, if he hasn't urged people to do what he thinks would be the best way to stop the genocide, then he is either a fool who can't see what is in front of him or a moral coward who can't act on his convictions.
Either way it makes him a poor ethics philosopher. We can be pretty sure that unless he himself is an experienced life guard, he would in fact not dive in to the river to save the child.
If he wouldn't save the drowning child, does that mean I shouldn't? Does his potential personal failings really invalidate his ideas and arguments?
No. That's exactly the ad hominem fallacy.
Nah dawg it’s the fact that his “incredible solid and well argued” moral framework finds it impossible to unequivocally denounce a fucking genocide that means that maybe it’s not nearly as solid as you say.
He's not the owner of the framework, the framework pretty obviously denounces a fucking genocide on the grounds of basic universalism and utilitarianism.
Nothing to do with what he does or doesn't do or say. We're allowed to think for ourselves, that's what philosophy is for.
Edit: If you need Peter to do it for you, here: If Biari was central to [October 7th], he was capable of extraordinary evil and ought to be brought to justice. But that does not justify killing 126 civilians.
Nah, it doesn't. Utilitarianism is pretty useless; in this case, it's pretty fucking clear that the IDF are utility monsters. And what do you mean by "basic universalism"?
response to your edit: that is not an unequivocal denouncement of genocide lol. That's some weaselly shit where Singer is trying his best not to say what is obviously true (genocide bad) and instead try and say "these are ways in which Israel can continue to justify genocide."
Don’t worry, utility monsters aren’t real. A utilitarian would say the “benefit” the IDF reaps from doing genocide is completely dwarfed by the suffering they cause.
lol. Utilitarianism requires you to come up with some way to quantify the utility of an action. Such a system isn’t real, so a utilitarian just makes shit up about utility according to whatever agenda they have in mind. Case in point: Zionists, of which EA is rife with.
you noticed that debate wasn’t allowed here and then turned an entire thread into a pointless fucking debate. thanks for that. fuck off.
I just don’t see how all these people come in and get insulted, only not to realise that no one is here to debate them and instead are just finding ways to clown on them. I will never get it. Thanks tho, this was super dull and I regret everything
I was hoping they’d get interesting so I didn’t jump on banning them, but holy shit did they ever take so much space in the thread to say fucking nothing. now I’m pruning hopefully just enough so viewers can get a taste of how much horseshit they were spewing without being tempted to take up more space continuing any of it.
18 of 45 comments. literal 40%
my urge to delete all 18 is rising
I'm terribly sorry for my rude behavior, I was hoping to catch the vibe here and be guided by those who interacted with me - I assumed they were regulars and would guide me in the right direction.
I'll stop with my horseshit.
Does moral cowardice matter in someone teaching about ethics? Yes, just as much as physical cowardice matters for a life guard. (The other way is fine.)
Does he express his ideas and teachings as something that it would be good if people did, but he totally wouldn't if it causes himself a smidgen of inconvenience? If he didn't, we now know that he was lying. Which matters if your moral framework cares about truth.
If you have to read his works for some reason, do it with open eyes and try to figure out who and what he is lying in service of.
Nothing about a philosopher's person matters as long as they're able to put forward coherent philosophical arguments. If a conclusion follows from a set of assumptions and an argument, what does it matter if a five year old or a tree presented that argument?
Sure, if you distrust the source, that invites deeper scrutiny, but it cannot in itself invalidate an argument.
That's first-order ethics. Some of us have second-order ethics. The philosophical introduction to this is Smilansky's designer ethics. The wording is fairly odious, but the concept is simple: e.g. Heidegger was a Nazi, and that means that his opinions are suspect even if competently phrased and argued. A common example of this is discounting scientific claims put forth by creationists, intelligent-design proponents, and other apologists; they are arguing with a bias and it is fair to examine that bias.
“What do you mean the clock is broken? It’s 12 now, and the clock says 12!”
Thanks!
@SmoothOperator @mountainriver
What's your position on Codes Of Conduct for free software projects? Just trying to confirm some prejudices here
Could you elaborate? I'm not sure I know what you're referring to, I'm not a software developer.
@SmoothOperator OK, how do you feel about the statement "technology is politically neutral"?
I'm not continuing the debate, but I'd like to answer your question:
I disagree, the design of technology is political (see Invisible Women) and the use of technology is political (see Marx and I guess the current political era in general).
Only in the absolutely simplest case would I agree, i.e. technology is politically neutral in the sense that a car would still exist if all humans were to vanish tomorrow, and wouldn't in itself be a political agent, but that's not really an interesting statement.
Effective Altruist
That's not the EA I initially thought this was about reading the title...
On awful systems it is almost never about the Other EA. EA: 'it's in the AI'
EA SPORTS: If it's in the game...
They're no better than their Russian/American/Chinese billionaire equivalents; they just find themselves restricted by higher standards in Europe.
Make no mistake, if it weren't for the laws currently in place, European billionaires would be making the exact same moves those in America currently are.
The saying "there is no such thing as an ethical billionaire" springs to mind. Who did they, or their families fuck over, in order to garner that sort of wealth?
Anyone who was truly altruistic, and had that sort of money, would not retain their status of billionaire for very long.
The saying “there is no such thing as an ethical billionaire” springs to mind. Who did they, or their families fuck over, in order to garner that sort of wealth?
There’s a running joke/working theory I’ve heard that in order to become billionaire, you have to have killed someone. (The reality is almost definitely worse)
The billionaire initiation ritual is that scene from Kingsman where
spoiler for a 11yo movie I guess
they ask him to kill his dog but instead of a dog it's a literal child that was performing forced labour for the last year and just wants to go home to its parents, and the bullets are very much live
the passing criteria:
They only pass if they go out of their way to kill a dog anyway.
It’s somewhat non-trivial to create a billionaire, let alone an EA variant; what other ideas do you have for improving EA?
The point I was trying to make was that the article isn't really about EA not working, it's more about billionaires claiming to donate effectively not actually doing so.
it can’t be that stupid, you must be donating wrong
Champion sneer
It’s almost as if the wealthy by and large don’t actually care about doing good or improving society!!!
Exactly
yeah, so we agree, EA, which is predicated on the wealthy actually giving away their money, is a flawed concept as that is something the wealthy cannot be compelled to do without force
EA isn't a political framework, it's a moral framework. It tells you what a morally good action looks like. Usually that doesn't involve compelling you to perform that action by any other means than appealing to your desire to be moral.
It for sure is morally good to spend any extra money you have in a way that does the most good, billionaire or not. Not sure I see the flaw in that. Especially if you don't do it instead of being an activist of systemic change, but in addition to that.
EA is absolutely a political framework. You're just too lazy or smooth-brained to see it.
Usually that doesn’t involve compelling you to perform that action by any other means than appealing to your desire to be moral.
You... don't know what a moral framework is.
It for sure is morally good to spend any extra money you have in a way that does the most good, billionaire or not.
"Duuuuuuuh it's good to do thing that do most good duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh" <- that's you
guess I need my brain re-wrinkled
Nah, just wrinkled.
And what elements of EA makes it a political framework rather than a moral one?
Even if it were possible, it’s not my job to educate you.
saving lives through charity, not the distribution of power, resources and privilege within a society or communal framework.
My stars! Good job googling “political framework”! You seem to be under the impression that charities are a black box that do nothing other than save lives. Perhaps you should look into that.
it's a good thing charities don't distribute resources within societies or communal frameworks!
dear gods how does one type that with a straight face and not pass out from sheer intellectual exertion
dear gods how does one type that with a straight face and not pass out from sheer intellectual exertion
Yeah. One thing I’ve realised since participating in Sneerclub is that when someone comes in thinking it’s debate club and 1. starts saying shit, and 2. you start coming up with counterarguments, and 3. you realise everything you come up with is just first order, basic stuff, then you have to remind yourself that this isn’t debate club, and that this person is stupid, and you don’t owe them intellectual energy.
In this case, in the broadest sense, politics is about getting a bunch of people to do something they might not initially agree with. Guess what a moral framework is designed to do?? Especially utilitarianism, which is literally just economics and accounting with a moral/ethical veneer. And that’s just first order shit!!! It’s not hard to go up the ladder from base theory to reality and come up with all kinds of examples and counterarguments or what have you. It’s just a waste of time with these people! They are either stupid or intentionally ignorant or both.
So yeah sometimes I’m ankle deep in drafting something offsite when I remember “it’s sneer club” and then I stop myself. You won’t convince these people, so just clown on them.
oh 100%. on the flipside of that, the advantage is that usually it's relatively easy to flip basic constructions into sneers. the combination of getting their arguments picked apart while being mocked usually causes the monocle to fall off the seal reeeal quick.
maybe there should be some kind of scoring system. perhaps a golf-like. par for three comments before they complain about your tone (sneering in a sneer club, my gods!), four for getting themselves banned. a bonus sticker in the shape of a star if "ad hominem" is typed verbatim
maybe there should be some kind of scoring system
If we start doing Awful GoldTM I will die a little inside