Effective Altruism

<h1>Effective Altruism</h1>

<p>Something about it seemed to ring untrue or easily refuted but I couldn't put my finger on it until I had my own child.</p>

<p>The problem with effective altruism is that it casts morality in terms of transactions and universal suffering without regard to local responsibility. It seems like it would be trivial to construct an argument that my resources are better put to use helping save lives in Africa than in raising my own family well, helping my son get into college, etc. It seems that it makes arguments that everyone should act in a certain way to alleviate suffering across the globe such that no one is having kids or no one is taking responsibility for their kids. (See <a class="thought-link" href="brain://api.thebrain.com/5IWkj_WbCkuk3zPNwDjZJQ/MKI330CqD0CRcFj4DiT-QQ/CategoricalImperative">Categorical Imperative</a>) and that if everyone acted according to EA principles then there would be no global economy, or there would be no starving children in Africa to help.</p>

<p>I haven't worked out the details but something tells me William MacAskill would agree that I as a follower of EA, I should still raise my kids and send them to college and help them be effective EA followers making tons of money, instead of donating it all in the form of bed nets in the present. In other words, EA needs to account for temporal aspects concerning the long term good of helping alleviate suffering, and that stuff is very hard to quantify, leaving you back in the arena of Existentialism or Optimistic Nihilism for answers on what to do with your time or how to spend your career.</p>