Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Comment Permalink
Ozzie Gooen2
0
0

Personally, I don't feel like I understand it's regular use much. My (brief) investigation has made me fairly confused on the matter.

If anyone else reading this feels like they have a better impression here, I'd be curious.

Reply
See in context
by Stefan_Schubert, Lucius Caviola
1 min read 7

152

Building effective altruismPhilosophyApplied ethicsUtilitarianismMoral psychologyVirtue ethicsNaive vs. sophisticated consequentialism
Frontpage
This is a linkpost for https://psyarxiv.com/w52zm

In this paper, we argue that utilitarians who try to act on utilitarianism in the real world face many psychological obstacles, ranging from selfishness to moral biases to limits to epistemic and instrumental rationality. To overcome the most important of these obstacles, utilitarians need to cultivate a number of virtues. We argue that utilitarians should prioritize six virtues.

  • Moderate altruism - to set aside some of their resources for others.
  • Moral expansiveness - to care about distant beneficiaries.
  • Effectiveness-focus - to prioritize the most effective interventions.
  • Truth-seeking - to overcome epistemic biases to find those effective interventions.
  • Collaborativeness - to engage in fruitful collaboration with other utilitarians, as well as non-utilitarians.
  • Determination - to consistently act on utilitarian principles with persistence and deliberation

In addition, we argue that utilitarians should normally not engage in harm for the greater good, but should stick to common sense norms such as norms against lying and stealing. 

So in our view, real-world utilitarianism converges with common sense morality in some respects. Utilitarians should follow common sense norms and should not feel that they have to sacrifice almost all of their resources for others, in contrast to what it might seem at first glance.

But in other ways, real-world utilitarianism diverges from common sense morality. Because some opportunities to do good are so much more effective than others, utilitarians should cultivate virtues that allow them to take those opportunities, such as effectiveness-focus and moral expansiveness. Those virtues are not emphasized by common sense morality.

Some of our suggested virtues are commonly associated with utilitarianism. Moral expansiveness is maybe the clearest example. By contrast, virtues such as truth-seeking, collaborativeness, and determination do not tend to be associated with utilitarianism, and are not conceptually tied to it. But empirically, it just turns out that they are very important in order to maximize utilitarian impact in the real world.

152

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in
Comments7


Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
Misha_Yagudin11
0
0

Great! I broadly endorse the above virtues and can't say much on the object level. On meta-level, I am curious about how do you think about the impact of this paper. I have certain guesses:

  • The paper's conclusion says: "We hope that it should inspire a debate among philosophers and psychologists about what virtues utilitarians should prioritize the most." Is that it?
  • Or are you aiming at figuring out recommendations for EAs to follow (akin to CEA's Guiding principles and Lucius Caviola's talk Against naive effective altruism)?
  • Or maybe you want to re-associate utilitarianism with nice/warm virtues because it appears cold to some (like Bleeding Heart Libertarians was reframing libertarianism)?
Reply
Stefan_Schubert9
0
0

Thanks for your comment. The comparison to Bleeding Heart Libertarians is good and instructive; thanks for that. Yes, one goal of our paper is to show that utilitarianism as practiced in the real world isn't about breaking rules and similar. Instead, when you actually apply utilitarianism, you need virtues that most people would feel positively about - like truth-seeking and collaboration. And yes, we do hope that that gives a different and more positive image of utilitarianism.

We also want to give recommendations to people who already believe in utilitarianism inside and outside the EA community, yes.

We are also at the early stages of an empirical project focused on getting a better psychological understanding of these virtues.

Reply
Keen Visionary3
0
0

Great paper! Though I believe one particular value ought to be cultivated above all though it only gets a passing mention in the article.

Kindness (Agape love).

Summary: Practicing "uncalculated" "less-impactful" goodness in frequent, small ways, should prove very helpful in the practice of larger-scale impactful calculated goodness .

  • It is common and "easy" to practice/cultivate 
  • I posit that a greater level of kindness leads to much greater ease of overcoming the psychological obstacles to cultivating the listed utilitarian virtues. Conversely, someone unkind by nature will have a much harder time to cultivate them
  • The IMPACT of becoming kinder thus can affect all other areas, and therefore is likely to be a highly -effective- way of increasing global well-being.
  • Increased Kindness has a ripple effect not simply on ourselves and our ability to do more good, but on others as well in ways that are difficult to quantify. 
  • Kindness applied daily, by a large segment of the population (or even a small one, arguably, if they are otherwise effective), with minimal effort, could dramatically impact the world, in ways that a similar effort in any one of the other virtues are unlikely to approach.

Which leads to a counter-intuitive hypothesis: 

Kindness, cultivated in daily life, applied to causes that may appear/be less-effective, but that come to us/that we come across during the daily bustle, could actually have the greatest impact on the world. 

I expect there are diminishing returns, and only a (small?) portion of one's resources ought to be dedicated to the effort. Anecdotal evidence however (EDIT: Actually I believe there is research on the topic presented in 80 000 hours?) seems to indicate that at least the emotional energy resource level increases significantly through acts of kindness, providing additional returns on the investment. 

 

Again:

Practicing "uncalculated" "less-impactful" goodness in frequent, small ways, should prove very helpful in the practice of larger-scale impactful, calculated goodness.

Reply
Ozzie Gooen2
0
0

Interesting work, thanks for posting.

One very minor point:
I see that you use the term "Truth-seeking." I've heard this term used before in the extended community, and I generally like it, but my impression is that it's "primary" definition is particular to political situations. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth-seeking

Have you found any existing discussion here? Do you think it's fine for us to use the word in the way you do in this paper, in all settings, without this causing confusing?

Reply
Stefan_Schubert6
0
0

Thanks, good question. I'm not quite sure how strongly the word "truth-seeking" is associated with this political usage (related to truth and reconciliation commissions, etc.). My intuition would have been that you can use it in the wider sense that we use it in here without risk of misunderstanding, but I haven't thought about it before and am open to input.

Reply
Vilfredo's Ghost12
0
0

the way you used it seems a lot more normal to me than the political usage

Reply
Ozzie Gooen2
0
0

Personally, I don't feel like I understand it's regular use much. My (brief) investigation has made me fairly confused on the matter.

If anyone else reading this feels like they have a better impression here, I'd be curious.

Reply
More from Stefan_Schubert
254
What psychological traits predict interest in effective altruism?
4 authors
· · 20m read
36
36
110
Linkpost: Dwarkesh Patel interviewing Carl Shulman
Stefan_Schubert
· · 1m read
5
5
112
Remuneration In Effective Altruism
Stefan_Schubert
· · 2m read
11
11
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
[Cross-posted from my Substack here] If you spend time with people trying to change the world, you’ll come to an interesting conundrum: Various advocacy groups reference previous successful social movements as to why their chosen strategy is the most important one. Yet, these groups often follow wildly different strategies from each other to achieve social change. So, which one of them is right? The answer is all of them and none of them. This is because many people use research and historical movements to justify their pre-existing beliefs about how social change happens. Simply, you can find a case study to fit most plausible theories of how social change happens. For example, the groups might say: * Repeated nonviolent disruption is the key to social change, citing the Freedom Riders from the civil rights Movement or Act Up! from the gay rights movement. * Technological progress is what drives improvements in the human condition if you consider the development of the contraceptive pill funded by Katharine McCormick. * Organising and base-building is how change happens, as inspired by Ella Baker, the NAACP or Cesar Chavez from the United Workers Movement. * Insider advocacy is the real secret of social movements – look no further than how influential the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights was in passing the Civil Rights Acts of 1960 & 1964. * Democratic participation is the backbone of social change – just look at how Ireland lifted a ban on abortion via a Citizen’s Assembly. * And so on… To paint this picture, we can see this in action below: Source: Just Stop Oil which focuses on…civil resistance and disruption Source: The Civic Power Fund which focuses on… local organising What do we take away from all this? In my mind, a few key things: 1. Many different approaches have worked in changing the world so we should be humble and not assume we are doing The Most Important Thing 2. The case studies we focus on are likely confirmation bias, where
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
I speak to many entrepreneurial people trying to do a large amount of good by starting a nonprofit organisation. I think this is often an error for four main reasons. 1. Scalability 2. Capital counterfactuals 3. Standards 4. Learning potential 5. Earning to give potential These arguments are most applicable to starting high-growth organisations, such as startups.[1] Scalability There is a lot of capital available for startups, and established mechanisms exist to continue raising funds if the ROI appears high. It seems extremely difficult to operate a nonprofit with a budget of more than $30M per year (e.g., with approximately 150 people), but this is not particularly unusual for for-profit organisations. Capital Counterfactuals I generally believe that value-aligned funders are spending their money reasonably well, while for-profit investors are spending theirs extremely poorly (on altruistic grounds). If you can redirect that funding towards high-altruism value work, you could potentially create a much larger delta between your use of funding and the counterfactual of someone else receiving those funds. You also won’t be reliant on constantly convincing donors to give you money, once you’re generating revenue. Standards Nonprofits have significantly weaker feedback mechanisms compared to for-profits. They are often difficult to evaluate and lack a natural kill function. Few people are going to complain that you provided bad service when it didn’t cost them anything. Most nonprofits are not very ambitious, despite having large moral ambitions. It’s challenging to find talented people willing to accept a substantial pay cut to work with you. For-profits are considerably more likely to create something that people actually want. Learning Potential Most people should be trying to put themselves in a better position to do useful work later on. People often report learning a great deal from working at high-growth companies, building interesting connection
 ·  · 31m read
 · 
James Özden and Sam Glover at Social Change Lab wrote a literature review on protest outcomes[1] as part of a broader investigation[2] on protest effectiveness. The report covers multiple lines of evidence and addresses many relevant questions, but does not say much about the methodological quality of the research. So that's what I'm going to do today. I reviewed the evidence on protest outcomes, focusing only on the highest-quality research, to answer two questions: 1. Do protests work? 2. Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Here's what I found: Do protests work? Highly likely (credence: 90%) in certain contexts, although it's unclear how well the results generalize. [More] Are Social Change Lab's conclusions consistent with the highest-quality evidence? Yes—the report's core claims are well-supported, although it overstates the strength of some of the evidence. [More] Cross-posted from my website. Introduction This article serves two purposes: First, it analyzes the evidence on protest outcomes. Second, it critically reviews the Social Change Lab literature review. Social Change Lab is not the only group that has reviewed protest effectiveness. I was able to find four literature reviews: 1. Animal Charity Evaluators (2018), Protest Intervention Report. 2. Orazani et al. (2021), Social movement strategy (nonviolent vs. violent) and the garnering of third-party support: A meta-analysis. 3. Social Change Lab – Ozden & Glover (2022), Literature Review: Protest Outcomes. 4. Shuman et al. (2024), When Are Social Protests Effective? The Animal Charity Evaluators review did not include many studies, and did not cite any natural experiments (only one had been published as of 2018). Orazani et al. (2021)[3] is a nice meta-analysis—it finds that when you show people news articles about nonviolent protests, they are more likely to express support for the protesters' cause. But what people say in a lab setting mig
Relevant opportunities
24
Last week to apply for the Futurekind AI Fellowship! (deadline: April 1)
Jay Luong
· · 1m read
0
0
7
80,000 Hours is hiring for an Engagement Specialist
2 authors
· · 7m read
3
3
36
Two jobs at The Jeremy Coller Centre for Animal Sentience, LSE
J. Birch
· · 1m read
0
0
View more