More generally though, my claim is just that solutions tend to be better when they are implemented locally and pragmatically, and not when thought of as abstract problems that can be solved by study and thought.
More generally though, my claim is just that solutions tend to be better when they are implemented locally and pragmatically, and not when thought of as abstract problems that can be solved by study and thought.
While I'm not an EA myself, accomplishments like Givewell[1] have really helped me keep respect for the movement - walking the walk is always orders of magnitude harder and more complex than talking the talk after all.
[0] https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/ea-global-2018-am... [1] https://www.givewell.org/
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/z93koy/what_...
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/the-new-moral-mathemat...
Also, frankly, it's really strange to see people rushing to attack them. Are mosquito nets and 3rd world children really so hated?
The comment on implementation is neither here nor there. Plenty of people implement their ethical theories. I don’t know how implementing something is an argument for the correctness of that thing. Certainly it’s good that a lot of people don’t implement their ethical theories.
Even Christians don't do that much charitable giving nowadays.
Every source I can find says exactly the opposite.
About as much here or there as the statement that they are implementing utilitarianism at all.
> Every source I can find says exactly the opposite.
There was a post here recently about this exact thing. Detailing the rise of megachurches, how they are stealing away the majority of Christmas from small churches, and how they don't do any charity.
I’m not super interested in debating the specifics of it, I am just highly skeptical of movements that place abstract formulas at the center, especially ones that have extensive funding from ethically dubious characters.
That’s all I have to say about it. Better critiques are listed in the links I shared.