- Effective Altruists (EAs) believe that we should give our resources (especially money and time) toward whatever action evidence shows maximizes overall welfare.
- I don’t see any logical fault with the EA worldview.
- Few people actually are EAs and give their resources to causes that measurably maximize welfare.
- Instituting a global welfare state that forces everyone to contribute to welfare maximization would be more effective than voluntary EA.
- Since many EAs are also libertarians, they tend to dislike the idea of a global welfare state, but that’s not an argument against it.
- The coercion required to institute a global welfare state would change the moral character of giving, but I don’t see how this matters within the EA framework. Why is the freedom not to give, the value of which cannot be measured, more valuable than the measurable impact of coerced contributions?
- A global welfare state would have many of the same failure modes than socialism. Once it has been instituted, welfare may actually decrease in the long term. However, this isn’t predestined. While some implementations resembling authoritarian communism would fail, there will be other implementations that increase welfare.
- (Relatedly, if everyone becomes an EA (voluntary or forced), welfare may decrease. This implies that EA relies on a certain proportion of people (maybe even the majority) not being EAs.)
- My question is therefore: Why don’t more EAs push for a good implementation of a global welfare state that forces everyone to be an EA, therefore maximizing welfare?
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Nehaveigur 