EA offers an opportunity to reflect on the possibilities of rationalizing altruism and developing a universal culture of altruism. The goal must be for altruism to become the primary motivation for economic participation—just as participation in consumer society or the pursuit of status are today.
Altruism always entails consequentialism and therefore always demands "effectiveness." The current EA movement is not yet fully altruistic, as it barely addresses the issue of what motivates altruism. It considers—albeit incompletely—the motivation to participate in the EA movement as it currently exists, but not the motivation for *effective* altruism—that is, altruistic action that is truly effective (achieving the greatest possible alleviation of suffering).
Approaching altruism from the standpoint of effectiveness (alleviating the suffering of others) requires making the maximization of the number of altruistic agents a primary concern. There is no alternative to a "mass" altruistic movement. If it is not a mass movement, it is not altruistic, because it fails to be effective.
And without a debate on how to increase motivation (which is currently entirely exceptional and insufficient), there is no rational approach to altruism—nor is there effective altruism.
The EA movement, as it currently stands, seems to take for granted that the motivation for altruism lies in the donor's emotional reward derived from the act of giving. There is, admittedly, a basis for this (such as blood donors, or a customer leaving a tip at a restaurant they will never visit again), but the likelihood that an imminent cultural shift could extend such behaviors far enough to transform society for the better seems minimal. Betting everything on such a prospect is completely irrational, and therefore ineffective. Furthermore, it is clear that the motivations for participating in the EA movement include factors of a different nature—social engagement within specific, exclusive circles, akin to Freemasonry—distinct from the purely altruistic act, even if claims to the contrary are made (the same applies to almost all ideological movements, where the actors' true motivations are frequently masked).
One example of a motivational strategy is found in Kant himself, who acknowledged the value of supposed supernatural rewards for virtuous individuals; this model—relying on supernatural rewards—is, of course, entirely discarded today, given the waning influence of supernatural beliefs.
The Stoics appear to have been motivated—despite their protestations to the contrary, as is often the case—by the honor accorded to public service for the common good. It is possible that part of the motivation for participating in the current EA movement is similar.
There are well-known proselytizing strategies (rooted in social psychology), such as insistent preaching (akin to commercial advertising).
Another valid strategy involves the use of charismatic figures (exemplified by the pacifist and charitable movement founded by Leo Tolstoy).
Here, we find one of the rare contributions to this forum regarding motivational strategies: a focus on digital strategies to foster reciprocal altruism.
My personal approach is to promote a virtue ethic—a life free from aggression, coupled with the development of social skills involving affection and benevolence—that entails effective altruism as a necessary and logical economic consequence.
In any case, it is irrational to do nothing to address the central challenge of realizing a world based on altruism: motivating individuals to engage in genuine—and therefore effective—altruistic action.
Rationalizing altruism is likely a decisive step in moral evolution. The mere emergence of the EA movement can be viewed as a promising sign. However, articulating a rational approach does not guarantee its implementation. The same was true of other ideological movements in the past.
