 An EA had only $3 to give to anti-malarial bednets. One day, she lost her $3. Her EA group said, “I’m so sorry. That is so net negative. You must be so upset.” The EA just said, “Maybe.” A few days later, she found out her $3 had been stolen by a man living on less than a $1 a day, and it was basically a non-consensual GiveDirectly donation. Her EA group said, “Congratulations! This is so net positive. You must be so happy!” The EA just said, “Maybe.” The poor man used his money to buy factory farmed chicken, causing far more suffering in the world. Her EA group said, “I’m so sorry. This is so net negative. You must be so upset.” The EA just said, “Maybe.” The poor man, better nourished, was able to pull himself out of the poverty trap and work on AI safety, eventually leading to an aligned artificial superintelligence that ended all factory farming in the world. Her neighbors said, “Congratulations! This is so net positive. You must be so happy!” The EA just said, “Maybe.” And it just keeps going. Because consequentialism is the ethics of the gods. For we are but monkeys and cannot know the consequences of our actions. Are deontology or virtue ethics the solution? The EA just says, “Maybe.” Read more All
0 Comments
|
Popular postsThe Parable of the Boy Who Cried 5% Chance of Wolf
The most important lesson I learned after ten years in EA Why fun writing can save lives Full List Categories
All
Kat WoodsI'm an effective altruist who co-founded Nonlinear, Charity Entrepreneurship, and Charity Science Health Archives
July 2025
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed