Overview

This week we will consider some of the ethical positions which inspire effective altruism, how a history of changing ethical norms might affect how we want to do good, and how our own values line up with the tools EAs use.

EAs often advocate for impartiality when doing good. For example, many EAs would claim that there's no intrinsic moral reason why people who are 1000 miles away are less worth helping than people right next to you (though they may be more or less worth helping for other reasons, for example if you have better specific opportunities available to help one of these group of people). There are many dimensions along which you might want to be impartial, such as across space, across time, and between species. Deciding which dimensions you think you should be impartial over might drastically change what you would prefer to work on, so this question is worth a lot of attention. For example, the priority you place on improving the conditions of animals in factory farms varies drastically depending on how much moral consideration you believe animals deserve.

We’ll also try to practice some useful reasoning approaches:

• Arguing from different sides: Trying to come up with the strongest arguments we can for and against something is very useful for understanding different perspectives, and realising that things are very rarely black and white

• Testing our beliefs: It’s one thing to say you believe something, but would you actually act as if that was true? If not, this can highlight that there is some other consideration you haven’t thought about. For example, if you think we should choose donations based on cost-effectiveness, but actually would also donate to charities based on other factors, this can usefully highlight that there is something about the argument for cost-effectiveness you don’t actually endorse. The aim isn’t too critique our actions, but to see what information they give us about what we actually believe and endorse.

Core Reading (45 mins)

• Moral Patienthood - EA Concepts (Webpage - <5 min.)

• The Possibility of an Ongoing Moral Catastrophe (Paper - 30 min.)

• Moral Progress and Cause X (Video 10 min.) (Start video from 48 minutes in for the relevant content)

Exercise (1 hour)

In this exercise we will explore the idea of impartiality and where we might want to apply it. You will imagine you’re in a court which decides how much moral standing to give various groups- how much an altruistic person should want to help them.

First you will imagine you are a lawyer on the side of always being impartial, and give the strongest arguments you can in favour of members of the group being worthy of equal moral consideration. Then you will take the opposite side, arguing against expanding the moral circle to include this group. We expect sometimes you will find it easier to argue for impartiality and sometimes you will find it easier to argue against it, but it is still worth considering the best case for both sides. We’ll then ask you to consider how these arguments affect your decision about where you would donate money or time.

Go through the categories below and write down all the arguments for and against giving members of the group being worthy of equal moral consideration. Try to spend about 15 minutes per category, with about 5 minutes on each side of the argument, and then 5 minutes reflecting on whether you agree with the donating statement.

People who are physically distant from us

The court is evaluating whether we should be impartial between helping someone in our local community and helping someone thousands of miles away. Remember we are not yet considering how easy it is to help one person or another, assume here that it is as easy to help one as the other.

• First write arguments in favour of in favour of equal moral consideration

• Then arguments against

Now consider the following statement: “There are huge wealth differences between people in rich countries like the UK and US, and people living in extreme poverty. As a result money can be spent much more cost-effectively in poorer countries. If you value people equally regardless of location, then you should basically never personally donate to charity focused on people not in extreme poverty.”

Do you endorse this statement? Why/why not?

Is it because you disagree with the empirical claims about cost-effectiveness, or the moral claims about how close by people compare to people far away?

Non-human animals (such as mammals and birds)

The court is evaluating whether we should be impartial between helping a human being and helping a mammal or a bird. Remember we are not yet considering how easy it is to help one individual or another, assume here that it is as easy to help one as the other.

• First write arguments in favour of equal moral consideration

• Then arguments against

Now consider the following statement: “One dollar spent on cage-free campaigns can spare over 100 hens a year of battery cage confinement. Even if you only value a chicken a thousandth as much as a human, this is much more cost-effective than saving a human life through something like the Against Malaria Foundation. Therefore if you value non-human animals somewhat, you should basically only donate to cost-effective animal focused charities.”

Do you endorse this statement? Why/why not?

Is it because you disagree with the empirical claims about cost-effectiveness, or the moral claims about how non-human animals compare to humans?

People who live in the far future

The court is evaluating whether we should be impartial between helping someone in the present and helping someone who will live thousands of years in the future. Remember we are not yet considering how easy it is to help one person or another, assume here that it is as easy to help one as the other.

• First write arguments in favour of equal moral consideration

• Then arguments against

Now read this article Astronomical Waste. Do you agree with the claim that “[P]riority number one, two, three and four should be ... to reduce existential risk”? Why/why not?