Hi, quick question. When you wrote that "After consulting with researchers in the space, we temporarily assumed that shrimp are of equal moral significance to chickens due to a lack of consensus on the issue." Did you mean that all consumed shrimp are morally equivalent to all farmed chickens or that shrimp are equivalent to chickens on an individual level?
Btw I checked this out thanks to a 80K podcast with Zorrilla and glad I did. It's a really interesting field and I hope yall succeed.
Although I'd prefer if Soares and Sam Altman saw eye to eye, I think it's inspiring that Altman seems to be soliciting criticism.
Wouldn't it be cool if other cause areas worked like that (e.g. wouldn't it be amazing if industrial animal agriculture consulted Animal Charity Evaluators before opening up factory farms?).
Thank you very much for doing your best and sorry about not being clearer in my first draft. I really appreciate your comments, they have definitely helped me clarify this essay. I'm sorry I was harsh in my last comment (I deleted the harsh parts).
"I will say that some... The two communities could help each other."
I agree. As I mentioned in my essay, there is considerable overlap in EA and religion.
Here's a quote I like but didn't get a chance to mention:
"But, curiously, religious commitment and effective altruism are united in telling us we should not serve mammon. They are united in claiming that the ordinary, 21st-century American and Western European way of living has gone drastically wrong, and that we need to create a different way of living from the ground up. They are united in thinking that people who are not part of our everyday social group should occupy a much larger part of our concern. They are united in thinking that our focus should be on others rather than on ourselves, not just part of the time, but as a way of life."
Source: “Effective Altruism and Religion Synergies, Tensions, Dialogue” edited by D. Roser et. al; published 2022; accessible at https://philarchive.org/archive/RIEEAA-3
I get the feeling you might like this book and thanks again for your feedback!
"There have been many studies of religion over the years, from outsider and insider perspectives, evaluating all aspects of religions"
I agree because I have been reading these studies for years.
I have added a preface [link] that explains my background, but as I mentioned above I have yet to find " a reliable, balanced, up-to-date source of the evidence for and against even a single major religious ideology (with one possible exception)" [more on that here] or a proper inquiry into alternatives to evidentialism [more on that here].
How about you?
"If you apply western ethics to religious philosophies... understand western philosophy and ethics to some degree."
"I think that you seek an an incompatible (apples-to-oranges) comparison of religions and EA."
I don't think so and I don't see how comparing them is necesssary for figuring out how to do the most good. If truth is not dependant on its source, then I don't care if the information vital for maximally effective altruism comes in the garb of EA or religion or any other label.
"Overall, I think your approach poses an unnecessary challenge to religion."
I didn't intend to challenge religion at all. Can u please explain why u think I am being "unfair to religion" (preferably while referring to specific quotes)?
"Sorry if that was rambling or repetitive. I don't have time to edit this down."
No worries (your unedited comments are a lot better than nothing :)
Thanks for the feedback, it got me thinking and led to me clarifying my work. Feel free to offer more.
"make use of studies of ideology in general
study religious epistemologies using research done to date"
Good idea, it would be wasteful to try to reinvent what has already been done. However I have tried and failed to find comprehensive studies and research thorough enough for an issue whose stakes are so high. How about you?
"I would be skeptical of the claim that religions all pursue effective altruism of some sort."
Me too! To clarify, one of my points was that religions claim to know by far the best ways (and so aspiring effective cannot afford to dismiss them without a fair trial), not they are good at putting those answers into practice [more on this in the section The stakes could not be higher].
In fact, I think it is safe to say most religious adherents often fall short of the ideal. For example popular Christian apologists write "Someone once said the biggest problem with Christianity is Christians" (Geisler and Turek, 2004) and I've heard similar sentiments from prominent Muslims and Jews and I bet they exist in other religions.
"You could investigate religious models of morality using western distinctions (deontology, axiology, consequentialism, utilitarianism, ..)."
Could you elaborate why? I was thinking it's less important to classify claims (essential to effective altruism) and more important to focus on verifying or falsifying them asap.
"[#1] The major world religions are more or less immune to epistemological challenges and [#2] I am tempted to think the same about any deeply held beliefs of folks who identify with EA."
Re #1: I don't disagree and that's okay with me since I want to figure out how the most effective altruism is done, not waste my time convincing religious people who don't share that interest.
#2 I empathize, but think it would be a mistake to underestimate EA without giving them a shot. Not only do they pledge allegiance to selflessness and seek criticism more than most, but the Centre for EA even states that radical open mindedness is a core value of EA. Thanks to your comment I have specified that in (what is currently) footnote .
Thanks for the update mate. Does this increased selectivity affect just longtermist grants and/or grants from EA funders other than OpenPhil?