Human instincts don't arise from randomness however, they are designed by evolution. Therefore I think the answer in altruism doesn't rely on negating humanity but rather balancing it with our conscious free will

 

Sigmund Freud wrote that "civilization is the control of instinct." If we adhere simply to genetic evolution, Homo sapiens would still be living a prehistoric existence as a "hunter-gatherer." But Homo sapiens is a "cultural animal." In a sense, it is the only cultural animal, since it makes cumulative use of cultural creativity throughout its historical trajectory.

Tribalism, supernaturalism, male dominance, and, above all, aggression, are human instincts that the civilizing process also tries to control in an evolutionary way, but not biologically, rather culturally. 

The idea of ​​a civilization in which altruism would be the general expression of economic relations may seem as unthinkable to us today as commercial air travel might have seemed to the wise Aristotle. But it is perfectly logical and in accordance with human nature as a cultural being.

An ideological movement based on improving behavior in the sense of benevolence and altruism (the conditions that give rise to human relationships of maximum trust and consequent effective cooperation) could be an extraordinary opportunity for social progress.

It is understandable that nationalism is a response to discrimination and aggression against minorities defined by ethnic markers. But it is a mistake to assume the aggressor's premise that such ethnic markers are humanly significant.

Tribalism or ingroupism is a human instinct. Any human group tends to create bonds based on arbitrary markers—practically anything can become "ethnic"—to defend the in-group from the perceived threat of the outside group. This has been observed even in the simplest societies.

An altruistic conception of human life must eliminate all forms of ingroupism, as it subordinates the individual (human) to the group (non-human). Nationalism, patriotism, ingroupism... no one should be deceived by the supposed goodness of "bonds of solidarity"... it is a form of superstition, necessarily aggressive and irrational.

It is a shame that in recent decades many prestigious authors have spoken out against the irrationalism of beliefs in the supernatural, but almost none against groupistic tendencies that are responsible for far more wars and violence than religion.

caring about others’ well-being. It shifts your attention away from anxious self-monitoring and toward concrete tasks: helping, building. That alone is often a relief. When you are absorbed in a task and have forgotten yourself, that’s often when the most profound happiness arises

 

It seems fairly well established that, for example, caring for pets provides a certain solace. However, altruism toward human beings in general is much more complex because it depends on cultural conditioning.

Caring for pets (and, of course, one's own offspring) provides well-being on a universal level, in all cultures. But extrapolating this fact to a lifestyle based on altruism is of little help when facing the reality of the human problem. This is an element to consider. If one relies on Buddhist wisdom, one must consider the fact that this wisdom evolved because a viable altruistic formulation did not exist in the traditional lifestyle until then.

Murder is rightly illegal, and conscription should be illegal for the same reasons. 

For something to be "illegal," it must be sanctioned by coercive law. Therefore, to declare conscription "illegal," you would need executive authority. You might even need to raise your own army if a political conflict arises between supporters and opponents of your legislative initiative.

The situation would be different if you were a pacifist (non-violent). In that case, you would have to face the consequences in all areas. 

Even to those otherwise sympathetic to SFE, its orientation toward subtraction can be demotivating.

It would not be wrong to assert that the entire process of civilization consists of controlling innate human aggression and, therefore, that all moral efforts to ultimately improve society have a subtractive structure: do not aggress, do not harm, do not tolerate suffering.

Compassionate religious philosophies have thus attempted to develop "positive" abstract concepts capable of emotionally engaging the believer in an ideology of altruism and benevolence. The best known in the West are those of Christianity, such as "Love" ("Agape"), "Charity," "Holy Spirit," "Grace"... These terms undergo a process of symbolization, can be psychologically internalized, and act as motivating and guiding forces. Traditionally, they have been associated with the "numinous" or supernatural.

For those interested today in an effective reformulation of altruism as an ideology, it would be very useful to analyze these past strategies and adapt them to our current knowledge and experience of human behavior and its potential for social improvement.

Our moral imagination likes vivid, dramatic acts of sacrifice better than slow, structural work.

Even considering this reality, ethical dilemmas arise because we don't always have time to change the circumstances of the environment (slow, structural work) in which they occur.

However, I venture to suggest that there is a very positive point in your perspective: the observation regarding "drama." Cultural shifts related to ethics have much to do with the emotional impact of events with moral content. This is the basis, for example, of the historical relevance of the evolution of mythologies.

If we consider moral evolution to be the fundamental factor in the advancement of civilizations (less aggression, more benevolence, more rationality, and more efficient cooperation), when faced with many ethical dilemmas, we must lean toward the capacity to influence moral evolution. A dilemma that predates the trolley problem is that of torture: if I don't torture the al-Qaeda terrorist, I won't be able to eliminate Bin Laden, and he will commit mass crimes again. But torture is wrong (moral evolution).

I believe the EA movement is part of a civilizational moral evolution. Therefore, it should always prioritize decisions that promote moral evolution as a long-term goal.

EA states, through its published texts (books, websites, and others), that it is a social movement with the potential to change the world. The principle of promoting rational, coherent, and systemic altruistic action may imply this, because altruism as an economic system can encompass all human social activity.

In that case, it would indeed contradict any other social movement, including socialism and Christianity. Socialism is an ideology that promotes a political system (coercive authorities) that establishes economic equality and social justice. The goal of socially just economic equality guaranteed by law implies that the militant socialist's primary consequence of their ideological commitment will be to facilitate this political regime. Doing the greatest good for the greatest number will equate to facilitating the success of the socialist political system (a long-term cause). Logically, one should dedicate 10% of their income not to fighting malaria, but to political actions that favor socialism. In fact, the EA movement already receives a lot of criticism from those who support various political advocacy movements (for example; against racism, in favor of animal rights, in favor of environmental legislation).

It is always appreciated when someone realizes that EA's main problem with respect to utilitarianism is that with little more than ten thousand adherents, there is little that can be done regarding the complex and ambitious goals set out in the Forum.

One suggestion for proselytism would be to secure the support of a highly influential public figure. I've mentioned the extraordinary success of the Tolstoyan movement in its time. Its doctrine of peace and love inspired many to give away their possessions to charity. Its success stemmed from the fact that, between 1890 and 1910, Tolstoy was the most famous living writer in the world. In 1910, his long and beautiful life came to an end, and the movement dissolved.

Today, there are several internationally renowned writers, enjoying both popular and critical acclaim, who have demonstrated a strong interest in moral, humanitarian, and even outright altruistic issues in their works. If one of them were to actively advocate for the ideal of effective altruism, it would be an enormous help.

Prioritizing humans over non-humans is yet another ethical dilemma, among many others. If you cure one AIDS patient, you might be condemning five malaria patients to death.

I sometimes feel like I'm not virtuous enough

Virtue is something that has to do with emotions and beliefs. In everyday life, many people go to therapy to help them feel better and be consistent with their beliefs. That is, we act in accordance with our nature, recognizing our aspirations, our weaknesses, and our needs.

If our belief is altruism, we should act similarly, developing strategies to improve our behavior in the direction of altruistic action. Ideally, altruistic action would provide us with immediate emotional rewards (which would have a "zero economic cost"), but this doesn't seem very attainable in daily life.

It occurs to me, based on some historical precedents, that altruism can be necessarily associated with behaviors of "moral excellence," which are those that make an individual worthy of the utmost trust. A human environment of maximum trust can be emotionally attractive as a personal aspiration for many individuals... even if this requires making certain unavoidable sacrifices.