The Scale, Neglectedness, Tractability, (Personal Fit) criteria

Impartiality (geographic, species, time) 

It is not clear why, under many moral systems we should care more about people who are in our country than to those who aren't. But those who are in developing nations can be helped about 100x more cheaply than those in the US. 

On a deeper level, EAs say that species is not the marker of moral worth. If we had evolved from dolphins rather than apes, would we be less deserving of moral consideration? If this logic follows, it implies significant low-cost opportunities to improve welfare.  

 Additional axioms for longtermism

Funding in general 

Criticisms 

• EA is incoherent. Consequentialism applies to one's whole life, but many EAs don’t take it this seriously
  • This argument applies to virtue ethics too, but no one criticises it - “why aren’t you constantly seeking to always do the virtuous action”. People in practice seem to take statements from consequentialist philosophies more seriously than they do from others
  • It is more intellectually honest to surface incoherence in your worldview - "I use 80% of my time as effectively as possible" is more honest that "I try and always do the most good
• EA frames all value in terms of impact creation and this makes members sad^[4]
  • How widespread is this?
  • Many EAs don't feel this way
  • Some people control orders of magnitude more resources than others. They could use their time and money to improve the lives of many other people. It is not idea to say these people should feel free to not create benefit
• EA supports a culture of guilt [Kerry thread]
  • How does EA compare in terms of mental wellbeing to other communities centred around "doing good" eg "Protestant Work Ethic" and "Catholic Guilt"?
  • If you struggle with this, consider reading Replacing Guilt, which is one of only 3 sequences with a permanent place sidebar of the EA Forum.
• EA is spending too much money
  • EA is spending more money but it's not immediately obvious it is spending too much. It might be spending too little. 
• EA is too focused on people in developing nations
  • Dollars go much further in developing nations which does lead to a natural bias in spending
• EA isn't focused enough on systemic change in America
  • Note that this is often used in very similar situations to the above criticism.  And in some of these, they can't both be true. 
• EA is too focused on longtermism and existential risk to the detriment of people who are alive now
  • People who are alive now are far less neglected, they can participate in markets, democracies, and self-advocacy
  • A significant portion of funding goes to present causes
  • Existential risk is arguably high enough to be relevant even to people alive today
• EAs defer too much to authority
• EAs don't listen to outside experts enough
• EA doesn't care about [insert issue]
• The repugnant conclusions is bad
• Utilitarianism is wrong
• EAs lie a bit^[5]
  • Nick Bostrom said he won a national record when really he did more courses than anyone he ever talked to
    • It's hard to say.  This is the sort of thing many people write in book bios.  But regardless, he removed it when pressed
  • If these are the best accusations of dishonesty one can get from a 1000s strong decade long movement, then it sounds like they are pretty honest
• There is a culture of suppressing disagreement while claiming to welcome it
  • This seems much better than comparable communities. 
• Add from Zvi's list

The winners of this https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/YgbpxJmEdFhFGpqci/winners-of-the-ea-criticism-and-red-teaming-contest 

1. ^{^}

^

1. ^{^}

2. ^

1. ^{^}

^

1. ^{^}

^

One morning, I say to them, you notice a child has fallen in and appears to be drowning. To wade in and pull the child out would be easy but it will mean that you get your clothes wet and muddy, and by the time you go home and change you will have missed your first class.

I then ask the students: do you have any obligation to rescue the child? Unanimously, the students say they do. The importance of saving a child so far outweighs the cost of getting one’s clothes muddy and missing a class, that they refuse to consider it any kind of excuse for not saving the child. Does it make a difference, I ask, that there are other people walking past the pond who would equally be able to rescue the child but are not doing so? No, the students reply, the fact that others are not doing what they ought to do is no reason why I should not do what I ought to do.

Once we are all clear about our obligations to rescue the drowning child in front of us, I ask: would it make any difference if the child were far away, in another country perhaps, but similarly in danger of death, and equally within your means to save, at no great cost – and absolutely no danger – to yourself?^{[1](#fncz1wzc3buf9)}

If many unrelated factors point towards doing the same action, beware that you may be using motivated reasoning^{[2](#fnz97ytpiywqf)}.

[how much lower higher? risk of existential catastrphe as a result]^{[3](#fnqlydrfpz78)}

• EA is incoherent. Consequentialism applies to one's whole life, but many EAs don’t take it this seriously
  • This argument applies to virtue ethics too, but no one criticises it - “why aren’t you constantly seeking to always do the virtuous action”. People in practice seem to take statements from consequentialist philosophies more seriously than they do from others
  • It is more intellectually honest to surface incoherence in your worldview - "I use 80% of my time as effectively as possible" is more honest that "I try and always do the most good
• EA frames all value in terms of impact creation and this makes members sad^{[4](#fnipt32j7op0s)}
  • How widespread is this?
  • Many EAs don't feel this way
  • Some people control orders of magnitude more resources than others. They could use their time and money to improve the lives of many other people. It is not idea to say these people should feel free to not create benefit
• EA supports a culture of guilt [Kerry thread]
  • How does EA compare in terms of mental wellbeing to other communities centred around "doing good" eg "Protestant Work Ethic" and "Catholic Guilt"?
  • If you struggle with this, consider reading Replacing Guilt, which is one of only 3 sequences with a permanent place sidebar of the EA Forum.
• EA is spending too much money
  • EA is spending more money but it's not immediately obvious it is spending too much. It might be spending too little.
• EA is too focused on people in developing nations
  • Dollars go much further in developing nations which does lead to a natural bias in spending
• EA isn't focused enough on systemic change in America
  • Note that this is often used in very similar situations to the above criticism.  And in some of these, they can't both be true.
• EA is too focused on longtermism and existential risk to the detriment of people who are alive now
  • People who are alive now are far less neglected, they can participate in markets, democracies, and self-advocacy
  • A significant portion of funding goes to present causes
  • Existential risk is arguably high enough to be relevant even to people alive today
• EAs defer too much to authority
• EAs don't listen to outside experts enough
• EA doesn't care about [insert issue]
• The repugnant conclusions is bad
• Utilitarianism is wrong
• EAs lie a bit^{[5](#fn8bu6gauz733)}
  • Nick Bostrom said he won a national record when really he did more courses than anyone he ever talked to
    • It's hard to say.  This is the sort of thing many people write in book bios.  But regardless, he removed it when pressed
  • If these are the best accusations of dishonesty one can get from a 1000s strong decade long movement, then it sounds like they are pretty honest
• There is a culture of suppressing disagreement while claiming to welcome it
  • This seems much better than comparable communities.
• Add from Zvi's list

One morning, I say to them, you notice a child has fallen in and appears to be drowning. To wade in and pull the child out would be easy but it will mean that you get your clothes wet and muddy, and by the time you go home and change you will have missed your first class.

I then ask the students: do you have any obligation to rescue the child? Unanimously, the students say they do. The importance of saving a child so far outweighs the cost of getting one’s clothes muddy and missing a class, that they refuse to consider it any kind of excuse for not saving the child. Does it make a difference, I ask, that there are other people walking past the pond who would equally be able to rescue the child but are not doing so? No, the students reply, the fact that others are not doing what they ought to do is no reason why I should not do what I ought to do.

Once we are all clear about our obligations to rescue the drowning child in front of us, I ask: would it make any difference if the child were far away, in another country perhaps, but similarly in danger of death, and equally within your means to save, at no great cost – and absolutely no danger – to yourself?^{[[1]](#fncz1wzc3buf9)}

If many unrelated factors point towards doing the same action, beware that you may be using motivated reasoning^{[[2]](#fnz97ytpiywqf)}.

[how much lower higher? risk of existential catastrphe as a result]^{[[3]](#fnqlydrfpz78)}

• EA is incoherent. Consequentialism applies to one's whole life, but many EAs don’t take it this seriously
  • This argument applies to virtue ethics too, but no one criticises it - “why aren’t you constantly seeking to always do the virtuous action”. People in practice seem to take statements from consequentialist philosophies more seriously than they do from others
  • It is more intellectually honest to surface incoherence in your worldview - "I use 80% of my time as effectively as possible" is more honest that "I try and always do the most good
• EA frames all value in terms of impact creation and this makes members sad^{[[4]](#fnipt32j7op0s)}
  • How widespread is this?
  • Many EAs don't feel this way
  • Some people control orders of magnitude more resources than others. They could use their time and money to improve the lives of many other people. It is not idea to say these people should feel free to not create benefit
• EA supports a culture of guilt [Kerry thread]
  • How does EA compare in terms of mental wellbeing to other communities centred around "doing good" eg "Protestant Work Ethic" and "Catholic Guilt"?
  • If you struggle with this, consider reading Replacing Guilt, which is one of only 3 sequences with a permanent place sidebar of the EA Forum.
• EA is spending too much money
  • EA is spending more money but it's not immediately obvious it is spending too much. It might be spending too little.
• EA is too focused on people in developing nations
  • Dollars go much further in developing nations which does lead to a natural bias in spending
• EA isn't focused enough on systemic change in America
  • Note that this is often used in very similar situations to the above criticism.  And in some of these, they can't both be true.
• EA is too focused on longtermism and existential risk to the detriment of people who are alive now
  • People who are alive now are far less neglected, they can participate in markets, democracies, and self-advocacy
  • A significant portion of funding goes to present causes
  • Existential risk is arguably high enough to be relevant even to people alive today
• EAs defer too much to authority
• EAs don't listen to outside experts enough
• EA doesn't care about [insert issue]
• The repugnant conclusions is bad
• Utilitarianism is wrong
• EAs lie a bit^{[[5]](#fn8bu6gauz733)}
  • Nick Bostrom said he won a national record when really he did more courses than anyone he ever talked to
    • It's hard to say.  This is the sort of thing many people write in book bios.  But regardless, he removed it when pressed
  • If these are the best accusations of dishonesty one can get from a 1000s strong decade long movement, then it sounds like they are pretty honest
• There is a culture of suppressing disagreement while claiming to welcome it
  • This seems much better than comparable communities.
• Add from Zvi's list

1. ^{**[^](#fnrefcz1wzc3buf9)**}

   Peter Singer - https://newint.org/features/1997/04/05/peter-singer-drowning-child-new-internationalist

2. ^{**[^](#fnrefz97ytpiywqf)**}

   https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/omoZDu8ScNbot6kXS/beware-surprising-and-suspicious-convergence

3. ^{**[^](#fnrefqlydrfpz78)**}

   Because existential risk is so important compared to anything else, there is some chance that EA has made this a little worse and so is a net negative enterprise

4. ^{**[^](#fnrefipt32j7op0s)**}

   https://twitter.com/KerryLVaughan/status/1545063368695898112?s=20&t=xgaSuh22V6y44Wkcebo22Q

5. ^{**[^](#fnref8bu6gauz733)**}

   https://twitter.com/xriskology/status/1579832304503259136?s=20&t=e8IFDZuxC5gLO2vdCldwyg

Impartiality (geographic, species, time) 

One morning, I say to them, you notice a child has fallen in and appears to be drowning. To wade in and pull the child out would be easy but it will mean that you get your clothes wet and muddy, and by the time you go home and change you will have missed your first class.

I then ask the students: do you have any obligation to rescue the child? Unanimously, the students say they do. The importance of saving a child so far outweighs the cost of getting one’s clothes muddy and missing a class, that they refuse to consider it any kind of excuse for not saving the child. Does it make a difference, I ask, that there are other people walking past the pond who would equally be able to rescue the child but are not doing so? No, the students reply, the fact that others are not doing what they ought to do is no reason why I should not do what I ought to do.

Once we are all clear about our obligations to rescue the drowning child in front of us, I ask: would it make any difference if the child were far away, in another country perhaps, but similarly in danger of death, and equally within your means to save, at no great cost – and absolutely no danger – to yourself?^{[[1]](#fncz1wzc3buf9)}

It is not clear why, under many moral systems we should care more about people who are in our country than to those who aren't. But those who are in developing nations can be helped about 100x more cheaply than those in the US. 

On a deeper level, EAs say that species is not the marker of moral worth. If we had evolved from dolphins rather than apes, would we be less deserving of moral consideration? If this logic follows, it implies significant low-cost opportunities to improve welfare.  

If many unrelated factors point towards doing the same action, beware that you may be using motivated reasoning^{[[2]](#fnz97ytpiywqf)}.

 Additional axioms for longtermism

Funding in general 

[how much lower higher? risk of existential catastrphe as a result]^{[[3]](#fnqlydrfpz78)}

Criticisms 

• EA is incoherent. Consequentialism applies to one's whole life, but many EAs don’t take it this seriously
  • This argument applies to virtue ethics too, but no one criticises it - “why aren’t you constantly seeking to always do the virtuous action”. People in practice seem to take statements from consequentialist philosophies more seriously than they do from others
  • It is more intellectually honest to surface incoherence in your worldview - "I use 80% of my time as effectively as possible" is more honest that "I try and always do the most good
• EA frames all value in terms of impact creation and this makes members sad^{[[4]](#fnipt32j7op0s)}
  • How widespread is this?
  • Many EAs don't feel this way
  • Some people control orders of magnitude more resources than others. They could use their time and money to improve the lives of many other people. It is not idea to say these people should feel free to not create benefit
• EA supports a culture of guilt [Kerry thread]
  • How does EA compare in terms of mental wellbeing to other communities centred around "doing good" eg "Protestant Work Ethic" and "Catholic Guilt"?
  • If you struggle with this, consider reading Replacing Guilt, which is one of only 3 sequences with a permanent place sidebar of the EA Forum.
• EA is spending too much money
  • EA is spending more money but it's not immediately obvious it is spending too much. It might be spending too little. 
• EA is too focused on people in developing nations
  • Dollars go much further in developing nations which does lead to a natural bias in spending
• EA isn't focused enough on systemic change in America
  • Note that this is often used in very similar situations to the above criticism.  And in some of these, they can't both be true. 
• EA is too focused on longtermism and existential risk to the detriment of people who are alive now
  • People who are alive now are far less neglected, they can participate in markets, democracies, and self-advocacy
  • A significant portion of funding goes to present causes
  • Existential risk is arguably high enough to be relevant even to people alive today
• EAs defer too much to authority
• EAs don't listen to outside experts enough
• EA doesn't care about [insert issue]
• The repugnant conclusions is bad
• Utilitarianism is wrong
• EAs lie a bit^{[[5]](#fn8bu6gauz733)}
  • Nick Bostrom said he won a national record when really he did more courses than anyone he ever talked to
    • It's hard to say.  This is the sort of thing many people write in book bios.  But regardless, he removed it when pressed
  • If these are the best accusations of dishonesty one can get from a 1000s strong decade long movement, then it sounds like they are pretty honest
• There is a culture of suppressing disagreement while claiming to welcome it
  • This seems much better than comparable communities. 
• Add from Zvi's list

The winners of this https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/YgbpxJmEdFhFGpqci/winners-of-the-ea-criticism-and-red-teaming-contest 

1. ^{**[^](#fnrefcz1wzc3buf9)**}

   Peter Singer - https://newint.org/features/1997/04/05/peter-singer-drowning-child-new-internationalist

2. ^{**[^](#fnrefz97ytpiywqf)**}

   ^

   https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/omoZDu8ScNbot6kXS/beware-surprising-and-suspicious-convergence

3. ^{**[^](#fnrefqlydrfpz78)**}

   Because existential risk is so important compared to anything else, there is some chance that EA has made this a little worse and so is a net negative enterprise

4. ^{**[^](#fnrefipt32j7op0s)**}

   ^

   https://twitter.com/KerryLVaughan/status/1545063368695898112?s=20&t=xgaSuh22V6y44Wkcebo22Q

5. ^{**[^](#fnref8bu6gauz733)**}

   ^

   https://twitter.com/xriskology/status/1579832304503259136?s=20&t=e8IFDZuxC5gLO2vdCldwyg