I'm too dumb to understand what this article is talking about. I thought Effective Altruism was about maximizing goodness/dollar when donating to charity. I assumed the measure of goodness was treated as an axiom, and up for critique. Number of lives saved per dollar seems to be a common metric, and one can argue why or why not that's a good measure.
The article, as far as I can follow it, seems to be trying to discredit the idea that we can know what a good measure is, objectively. Okay, I guess I can see that. But who cares? Lives/dollar seems like a good measure to me, and I like it. No more reasoning required. It's my money and I decide what to do with it. And I can still think people who disagree with me are wrong.
Moral realism, metaethics, what is all this crap? Is there more to Effective Altruism that I am unaware of? What are they even trying to argue? On either side?
The article, as far as I can follow it, seems to be trying to discredit the idea that we can know what a good measure is, objectively. Okay, I guess I can see that. But who cares? Lives/dollar seems like a good measure to me, and I like it. No more reasoning required. It's my money and I decide what to do with it. And I can still think people who disagree with me are wrong.
Moral realism, metaethics, what is all this crap? Is there more to Effective Altruism that I am unaware of? What are they even trying to argue? On either side?