Inspired by the recent discussion on the Utilitarian Facebook group about creating a new group for effective altruism, and inspired by the Felicifia discussion on "Helping Along "Shallow" Utilitarians", I'm wondering why there are people who endorse utilitarianism, but don't think this implies they should be effective altruists in their day-to-day life.

Is it just some sort of moral externalism (where people endorse utilitarianism but aren't motivated by it)? Genuine doubts about the utility-increasing nature of effective altruism? Some other concern?

I'd like to understand. I'd also like to know whether we should do anything to try to change people's views?

They probably study moral philosophy just for the intellectual stimulation.

peterhurford wrote:Is it just some sort of moral externalism (where people endorse utilitarianism but aren't motivated by it)? Genuine doubts about the utility-increasing nature of effective altruism?

For me, it's both. Endorsing utilitarianism exists on an intellectual level for me, which never drives more than 10% of my actual day-to-day actions. At least 90% are driven by near-term practical necessities, impulses, and unreflected habit. However, the 10% are not completely useless; I did donate more than the average person in the past, and to more well-chosen charities.

The genuine doubts are also a problem. The world is a big and chaotic system, and we individually affect only relatively small changes that have indirect side-effects that could easily backfire. There is such a thing as an illusion of control, where people mistakenly believe a random system responds to their actions in meaningful ways. I think many altruists - or moralists generally - are at least somewhat overconfident in their positions. (Then again, maybe I'm underconfident.) There's also change in value judgments over time (e.g. how to handle dilemmas and trade-offs). Ambiguities like these can make altruism less internally rewarding.

There's also an element of social resentment in my psychology, since powerful people have made bad decisions for reasons of low intellectual quality, and even complete self-sacrifice by people like me could compensate only a small fraction of that damage. What comes out of political systems - including democracy - is often neither thrillingly benevolent nor overwhelmingly sane. This bogs us down further, and at least my motivation is reduced further. It turns the idea of "effective altruism" into "making up for a small fraction of the preventable huge mistakes of others".

One thing that surprised me when I read the recent interview with Brian Tomasik is that effective altruism comes natural to him and doesn't require much willpower. I suspect this is an outlier; e.g. it's clearly not true for me.

I'd also like to know whether we should do anything to try to change people's views?

Not clear to me what that would be.

Is it just some sort of moral externalism (where people endorse utilitarianism but aren't motivated by it)?

Some people make a distinction between public policy and individual action. Economists seem to advocate utilitarianism when they argue for legalizing the sale of marijuana or organs, but I get the impression that they're more selfish and cynical than average.

A few people in my college ethics classes favored utilitarianism over the alternatives, but none of none of them bought Peter Singer's argument about the drowning child and aid wholesale. It takes a certain degree of introspection, humility, and open-mindedness to admit that you're acting wrongly.

Some people think of morality as one consideration among many. They say things like, "Eating meat is morally wrong, but it tastes good and it's necessary for good health, so I'm going to keep doing it," and don't see a problem.

The answer would depend on what sort of people you're talking about.

I'd be much more altruistic if I were convinced that we knew how to increase utility. I started the thread on "Plant Pain" in the Animal Welfare section in order to discuss some of the ambiguities that exist. I'm not sure what course of actions humans could take to actually increase utility and not sure if we'll ever know what course to take. I really wish there were obvious answers - it would be rewarding to donate to a cause that very confidently believed would be increasing utility, but I don't see that being the case.

LJM1979 wrote:I'd be much more altruistic if I were convinced that we knew how to increase utility. I started the thread on "Plant Pain" in the Animal Welfare section in order to discuss some of the ambiguities that exist. I'm not sure what course of actions humans could take to actually increase utility and not sure if we'll ever know what course to take. I really wish there were obvious answers - it would be rewarding to donate to a cause that very confidently believed would be increasing utility, but I don't see that being the case.

If you don't think we're clueless as to how to increase utility, there are some things you can do. As for donation targets, you could donate to GiveWell top charities which have high confidence values (though I could see a reasonable person being deterred by the poor meat-eater problem) or Vegan Outreach, which I think can make a strong case (see Brian's first estimate [PDF], Brian's second estimate, my estimate, and Jeff Kauffman's estimate).

Or, seeing no options right now, you still can donate toward those who are trying to figure out how to increase utility so that we'll get strong opportunities sooner rather than later or at absolute least start putting money into a donor-advised fund so as to have more money once an opportunity lies around. Even operating under extensive uncertainty, I don't know the commonsense morality status quo of not donating could ever come ahead.

I do agree that it would be nice to feel more confident in what we're doing, though.

peterhurford wrote:

LJM1979 wrote:I'd be much more altruistic if I were convinced that we knew how to increase utility. I started the thread on "Plant Pain" in the Animal Welfare section in order to discuss some of the ambiguities that exist. I'm not sure what course of actions humans could take to actually increase utility and not sure if we'll ever know what course to take. I really wish there were obvious answers - it would be rewarding to donate to a cause that very confidently believed would be increasing utility, but I don't see that being the case.

If you don't think we're clueless as to how to increase utility, there are some things you can do. As for donation targets, you could donate to GiveWell top charities which have high confidence values (though I could see a reasonable person being deterred by the poor meat-eater problem) or Vegan Outreach, which I think can make a strong case (see Brian's first estimate [PDF], Brian's second estimate, my estimate, and Jeff Kauffman's estimate).

Or, seeing no options right now, you still can donate toward those who are trying to figure out how to increase utility so that we'll get strong opportunities sooner rather than later or at absolute least start putting money into a donor-advised fund so as to have more money once an opportunity lies around. Even operating under extensive uncertainty, I don't know the commonsense morality status quo of not donating could ever come ahead.

I do agree that it would be nice to feel more confident in what we're doing, though.

I'm honestly not sure if we're completely clueless. Part of me thinks it would be better to do something than nothing but I'm not sure any of those organizations do any net good. Supporting them requires making assumptions with unknown validity.

LJM1979 wrote:Supporting them requires making assumptions with unknown validity.

All it really requires is a guess that they're of higher value than nothing -- do you think the money will do better than what it currently is doing? Even then, why not consider a donor advised fund, unless you think we'll *never* find an opportunity with any chance of utility beyond spending the money on whatever it is you currently do with it?

peterhurford wrote:

LJM1979 wrote:Supporting them requires making assumptions with unknown validity.

All it really requires is a guess that they're of higher value than nothing -- do you think the money will do better than what it currently is doing? Even then, why not consider a donor advised fund, unless you think we'll *never* find an opportunity with any chance of utility beyond spending the money on whatever it is you currently do with it?

I just wanted to add that I thought about it and I think you're right that it is better to donate than to do nothing. I'm now giving a small monthly donation to Vegan Outreach.

LJM1979 wrote:I just wanted to add that I thought about it and I think you're right that it is better to donate than to do nothing. I'm now giving a small monthly donation to Vegan Outreach.

Hurray! Congratulations on being able to change your mind and also being motivated to donate! (Not that I thought you wouldn't be capable of doing these things, but they're traits I want to emphasize and praise, and try to cultivate in myself. I'm not always the best at either.)

Thanks; that doesn't mean I'm certain that something good will come from it but I still figured it's better to donate than to just spend the money eating out or doing something else that's not that important.