Also available on my blog.

I remember speaking to a fellow student at Oxford, someone who was a mentor to me, in the EA community. I got all sorts of models from him about how to deal with my problems. Granted, he couldn’t fix me - I’m still fixing myself. At the time, I railed against his advice to stop worrying about things, and now I see clearly the wisdom in what he said, and why he said it. Without his help, I think I’d have been a fair bit more stuck than I was. We’ll call him Bob, because that’s a name basically nobody actually has. Maximum anonymity.

I remember telling Bob once that I wanted my life to be ‘100% EA’, or something along those lines. And he said to me: what does that mean?

The idea was not meaningless to me. I’d met many people who I took to be 100% EA. This was in an intense phase of over-idolising EAs, and overestimating my own capacities.

When I was really caught up in over-idolising EA, some ways in which members of the community operated began to confuse me. For example, when people would thank one another for their contributions to some project, I would be confused. Weren’t we all working towards the same altruistic, selfless goals? What benefit was it to Person X if Person Y helped with a project? The project was nothing to do with Person X! It was to do with doing the most good! For Person X to thank Person Y, this would mean Person X derived some personal benefit from the project, which would surely be heresy!

I saw that this didn’t logically make sense, in that people should thank one another, and that this is a good norm and a decent way to be as a person. I understood that, but I was so anxious that I couldn’t erase the above sort of addled thought process from my mind. This was just the way my 18 year-old mind thought.

It’s the proudest achievement of my life to have taken that anxious teenager through 4 years of university and then to graduate. He was a pain. And the hardest pains to deal with in life are the ones that are part of your own identity.

By now, the wisdom of Bob’s question is clear to me. And I’d encapsulate that wisdom now in the following statement:

To be a good EA, in the sense that it is conceived of by most EAs, you must enjoy your life to some degree.

This is because living one’s life is rarely an exclusively moral decision.

This isn’t necessarily a statement of fact, but it is a conjecture. It’s not new, either, by any means. Others think similar things and have written similar things. There’s a large literature on self-care for EAs.

People are EAs because People Want Careers. They’re EAs because they want to ‘get on in life’, and this means prioritising the right things. They’re EAs because they are people, and therefore some part of them wants to enjoy life, and the best way for them to do that is to do it whilst doing good.

If you try to make living your life an exclusively moral decision, you’re likely to fail, in my view. There may be some who think they’re doing this, and they could be right, but I think there are at least similar numbers - and likely many more - who have tried it and failed. I’m one of them. And now my life’s kinda fucked (and my moral integrity certainly is) though I’m getting back on my feet, slowly.

And obviously, enjoying things is good, because you’re more likely to stick at them. You’re also more likely to progress and learn and be creative and do other good things besides. A wise man once said: detach the grim-o-meter.

I don’t think this applies just to EA, either. You could say that deeply devoted religious people live their lives in an exclusively moral framework, and that may be true, but the reason they can do so is that their religion is not overly demanding. Utilitarianism is the most demanding moral framework I’m aware of, in the modern world[1].

The idea of the ‘Perfect Altruist’ is a myth. If you aim for that, you risk flying too close to the sun.

And then you will fall, and the fall will be painful, and you’ll be lucky to escape with any life at all.

Exempting perhaps some extremely demanding cults, or extremely demanding interpretations of existing moral doctrines (or individuals who have developed their own extremely demanding frameworks based on some other idea or neurosis).[1]

  1. ^

    Exempting perhaps some extremely demanding cults, or extremely demanding interpretations of existing moral doctrines (or individuals who have developed their own extremely demanding frameworks based on some other idea or neurosis).

10

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments1
Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Regarding "To be a good EA, in the sense that it is conceived of by most EAs, you must enjoy your life to some degree. This is because living one’s life is rarely an exclusively moral decision", you may also like Tyler Alterman's reflections, in particular this paragraph:

Totalized by an ought, I sought its source outside myself. I found nothing. The ought came from me, an internal whip toward a thing which, confusingly, I already wanted – to see others flourish. I dropped the whip. My want now rested, commensurate, amidst others of its kind – terminal wants for ends-in-themselves: loving, dancing, and the other spiritual requirements of my particular life. To say that these were lesser seemed to say, “It is more vital and urgent to eat well than to drink or sleep well.” No – I will eat, sleep, and drink well to feel alive; so too will I love and dance as well as help.

Regarding "Utilitarianism is the most demanding moral framework I’m aware of, in the modern world", I think Scott's distinction between axiology, morality and law is useful. Quoting liberally from that essay:

These three concepts are pretty similar; they’re all about some vague sense of what is or isn’t desirable. But most societies stop short of making them exactly the same. Only the purest act-utilitarianesque consequentialists say that axiology exactly equals morality, and I’m not sure there is anybody quite that pure. And only the harshest of Puritans try to legislate the state law to be exactly identical to the moral one. To bridge the whole distance – to directly connect axiology to law and make it illegal to do anything other than the most utility-maximizing action at any given time – is such a mind-bogglingly bad idea that I don’t think anyone’s even considered it in all of human history.

These concepts stay separate because they each make different compromises between goodness, implementation, and coordination. ...

Axiology is just our beliefs about what is good. If you defy axiology, you make the world worse.

At least from a rule-utilitarianesque perspective, morality is an attempt to triage the infinite demands of axiology, in order to make them implementable by specific people living in specific communities. ...

Law is an attempt to formalize the complicated demands of morality, in order to make them implementable by a state with police officers and law courts. ...

In a healthy situation, each of these systems reinforces and promotes the other. Morality helps you implement axiology from your limited human perspective, but also helps prevent you from feeling guilty for not being God and not being able to save everybody. The law helps enforce the most important moral and axiological rules but also leaves people free enough to use their own best judgment on how to pursue the others. And axiology and morality help resolve disputes about what the law should be, and then lend the support of the community, the church, and the individual conscience in keeping people law-abiding.

In these healthy situations, the universally-agreed priority is that law trumps morality, and morality trumps axiology. ...

In unhealthy situations, you can get all sorts of weird conflicts. Most “moral dilemmas” are philosophers trying to create perverse situations where axiology and morality give opposite answers. For example, the fat man version of the trolley problem sets axiology (“it’s obviously better to have a world where one person dies than a world where five people die”) against morality (“it’s a useful rule that people generally shouldn’t push other people to their deaths”). And when morality and state law disagree, you get various acts of civil disobedience, from people hiding Jews from the Nazis all the way down to Kentucky clerks refusing to perform gay marriages.

Curated and popular this week
Relevant opportunities