An interesting post was recently written about the personal commitment to Effective Altruism and the necessary prevention of burnout when making financial sacrifices. It is therefore necessary to calculate what level of spending we should reserve for ourselves in order to aspire to a legitimate level of "happiness."
But the issue deserves to be approached from a broader perspective. To what extent can we make "happiness" compatible with "altruism"?
The mere act of donating increases happiness to some extent... but if this were sufficient, no one would give up abundant and readily available happiness. The reality is that donating, although it somewhat increases happiness in general terms, does not usually compensate for the economic loss it entails.
If we are good utilitarians, we will have to keep in mind that broadening the motivation for altruistic action should be a primary concern. The more people engage in altruism, the more effective it will be. Very few seem to care about something so obvious. The ideas contributed to this Forum usually concern how to get the most out of the altruistic action of the motivated agents out there. No one considers doing anything to increase it.
What if altruistic action could be a cause of more happiness, not just a possible cause of less happiness (burnout)?
Of the many ways a person can be happy, isn't there one that involves practicing altruism? Note that although Jens Anslaug (the author of the post I mentioned above) considers altruistic action to be his primary interest (deontology?)... there may also be people—many, perhaps—who choose other interests... within which altruism would be a necessary consequence... though not the direct goal.
I'm sure Jens Anslaug doesn't need my praise at all, but his altruistic motivation, as he articulates it, strikes me as an exceptional benevolence that I wish would expand beyond the ten thousand GWWCPledge. But what if that expansion doesn't occur? What if EA is another failed social improvement initiative like so many that have already occurred in history? In almost twenty years, growth hasn't been spectacular.
EA MUST explore other options to broaden the motivational basis for altruistic agents. I can't think of anything more utilitarian than this today.
My proposal is to open a space to discuss the possibilities of developing an Effective Altruism movement that is more effective than EA today and that focuses more on the motivational basis of altruistic behavior. That the practice of altruism be part of a life plan that increases—and not threatens—the happiness of the altruistic agent.
Logically, we have the starting point of the religious movements of the so-called "compassionate religions." By participating in compassionate religious movements, millions of people (well over ten thousand) have carried out altruistic actions of great value and, above all, have achieved high levels of "happiness" (which increases motivation).
EVOLUTION IS COPY PLUS MODIFICATION
Why does religion bring happiness?
Religious people are happier, on average, than nonreligious people. This effect arises from the social ties that come with participation in a religious community, as well as from feeling connected to something beyond the self. P. 88 “The Happiness Hypotesis” Jonathan Haidt
Even when social scientists can’t accept supernatural beliefs, they recognize that religion is a profoundly influential human phenomenon that has been evolving effective self-control mechanisms for thousands of years. (…) Does a belief in a higher power really give you more control over yourself? Or is something else going on—something that even nonbelievers could believe in? (“Willpower”, Baumeister and Tierney, chapter 8)
In fact, we have the paradox that the most intellectually developed nations are those that provide the greatest happiness to their citizens. Intellectual development inevitably leads to Enlightenment thinking and consequent atheism. However, it turns out that the happiest people living in those nations are precisely those who believe in the supernatural. They are not happy because they believe in supernatural beings... but because they have religion. If we atheists also had "religion"... and it were of the "compassionate" kind... then the motivational basis for altruism would grow enormously. Could there be anything more utilitarian than that?
Almost two hundred years ago, the former atheist priest Ernest Renan speculated about the emergence of a "pure religion" (whose origins lay, in his somewhat exaggerated speculation, in early Christianity).
God doesn't exist, but religion does, and historically, so-called "compassionate religions" have demonstrated that they comprise social psychological mechanisms capable of providing individuals with rewarding emotional states, social harmony, improved behavior in the sense of benevolence... and a predisposition toward altruistic action.
These mechanisms of harmony and benevolence can exist outside of belief in the supernatural.
With the exception of organized religion, Alcoholics Anonymous probably represents the largest program ever conducted to improve self-control (…) Yet social scientists still aren’t exactly sure what AA accomplishes. (“Willpower”, Baumeister and Tierney, chapter 8)
What the creators of AA achieved can be achieved again. They were not academic psychologists, but highly motivated individuals who developed their model of "behavior improvement" through a process of trial and error... without ever losing sight of the goal.
For EA, the goal to be achieved is... the largest possible number of altruistic agents in the world.
To achieve the largest possible number of people motivated to become altruistic agents, altruistic action must be associated with the greatest possible happiness.
Perhaps many people who participate in EA have already been motivated by "social ties" and not just by the utilitarian ideal. We should be wary of those who, when making ideological choices that greatly compromise their lifestyle, claim that they are not doing so for "personal reasons." Ideological choices do have a lot to do with the personal.
But a participatory belief of a "compassionate religious" kind can offer much more than "social ties."
Christian love has focused on two key words:- caritas and agape. Caritas (the origin of our word "charity") is a kind of intense benevolence and good will; agape is a Greek word that refers to a kind of selfless, spiritual love with no sexuality, no clinging to a particular other person. (…)As in Plato, Christian love is love stripped of its essential particularity, its focus on a specific other person. Love is remodeled into a general attitude toward a much larger, even infinite, class of objects. P. 131 “The Happiness Hypotesis” Jonathan Haidt
We know that, like AA, a collaborative effort, through trial and error, can design a subculture of benevolence and altruism that motivates—in their pursuit of happiness—far more people than the GWWC Pledge currently brings together. If this is implemented, in addition to bringing happiness to many individuals of a certain temperament (not everyone is cut out to be a saint), it would also have the potential to influence the whole of conventional society toward moral improvement.
Today, we have all kinds of historical experiences of cultural change and a rich variety of strategies available—apart from those of religious tradition—to attempt to improve behavior, from psychotherapy to coaching to the "Stanislavsky method" of acting.
Perhaps the most difficult thing of all is to break through prejudice and consider the real situation.
Thank you for the post! Can't belive I only saw it now.
I do agree that altruism can and should be seen as something that's net positive to once own happiness for most. But:
1. My post was mainly intended for people who are already "hardcore" EAs and are willing to make a significant personal sacrifice for the greater good.
2. You make some interesting comparisons to religion that I somewhat agree with. Though I don't think religion is as time consuming as EA is for many EAs. I'm also sure EA would seem less like a personal sacrifice if you were surrounded by EAs.
3. Trying to make EA more mainstream is not simple. Many ideas seems ratical to the average person. You could ofc try to make the ideas seem more in line with the average viewpoint. But I don't think that's worth it if it makes us less efficient.
Recently, another forum post—at least—addresses the issue of increasing motivation for altruistic action.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/gWyvAQztk75xQvRxD/taking-ethics-seriously-and-enjoying-the-process
This post referred too to a very enjoyable book about altruistic action, published ten years ago, which I think we should all read.
I honestly believe this should be the real, priority long-term question: how to generate a non-political social movement that motivates altruistic action.
I would love for the EA movement, as it exists today, to be able to achieve the ambitious goals of increasing the number of signatories of the GWWC Pledge to "millions"... but I have my doubts that this will be the case, and is it fair to the people who are suffering and require altruistic action to simply wait and see, and not try anything to accelerate the process of increasing altruistic action?
In my view, the first step would be to generate a discussion group on this issue (how can we motivate more people to be active altruists?). I imagine an inevitable conclusion would be, above all, to try to generate a social support movement for donors and those who are hesitant about whether or not to be one.
The "Alcoholics Anonymous" model ("mutual aid") is the most obvious: individualized support and the creation of small groups ("cells") at the local level. It's absurd not to consider the psychological implications of making such a significant change in your lifestyle from what's conventional.
All of this is independent of the speculation—which I find logical—about the possibility of organizing a "behavioral ideology" (so we don't call it "religion") that offers individuals the option of developing a behavioral style based on benevolence, aggression control, altruistic idealism, and mutual affection, all within the framework of enlightened rationality, which, to certain temperaments at least, might be attractive as a source of "personal happiness" (let's not forget that there are many ways to "be happy"). There are historical precedents for such social movements being viable (why they failed is a topic that deserves deep reflection).
Thank you very much, Jens, for sharing your point of view, which I find extremely valuable.