But the "effective" part means more than just that. From their site:
> It is a research field which uses high-quality evidence and careful reasoning to work out how to help others as much as possible.
This assumes that reasoning and evidence are sufficient to determine what will be most effective. Compare this to the Buddhists, for example, who believe that the networks of causality are so complex and intricate that trying to make such determinations (at least, on any humanly reasonable scale) are doomed due to missing a lot of the picture as well as generally incorporating many faulty assumptions.
In other words, what is ultimately most effective at ending suffering may not fit into the metaphysical framework that EA implicitly adopts.
> It is a research field which uses high-quality evidence and careful reasoning to work out how to help others as much as possible.
This assumes that reasoning and evidence are sufficient to determine what will be most effective. Compare this to the Buddhists, for example, who believe that the networks of causality are so complex and intricate that trying to make such determinations (at least, on any humanly reasonable scale) are doomed due to missing a lot of the picture as well as generally incorporating many faulty assumptions.
In other words, what is ultimately most effective at ending suffering may not fit into the metaphysical framework that EA implicitly adopts.