It is widely believed today that our moral, cultural, and political alternatives are limited either to the ideas of the secular, relativistic left—or to those of the religious, absolutist right—or to some compromised mixture of the two. Objectivism is fully secular and absolutist; it is neither liberal nor conservative nor anywhere in between.
GiveWell and GWWC tend to rate charities in a quasi-utilitarian way, using a combination of the best available published evidence for the interventions, and asking lots of questions of the charities they rate relating to things like checking that the interventions actually work auditingroom for more funding, and whether adding more funding would do the same amount of good, more good, or less good.
Overhead is also considered: They are preferred by EAs over existing charity evaluators such as Charity Navigator - Charity Navigator just looks at the percentage a charity spends on administrative and fundraising overheads and pays no attention to whether what the charity is doing is effective, or how effective it is.
However, GiveWell has partnered with billionaire Facebook co-founder Dustin Moscovitz and his wife's charitable foundation in a joint initiative called the Open Philanthropy Project, and in this initiative they have been accused of casting aside their analytical rigour in favour of recommending, in some cases, politically liberal charities presumably already favoured by the Moscovitzs.
GiveWell has also recommended that people spam the Against Malaria Foundation AMF with all  the money they have set aside to donate, on the grounds that they think it's the best charity, even at the risk of exhausting the AMF's room for more funding, amongst other dubious decisions.
Origins[ edit ] The philosophical underpinnings mostly come from philosopher Peter Singer, particularly his essay Famine, Affluence, and Morality.
He argues in this essay that affluent people are morally obligated to donate far more of their income to humanitarian causes than is considered normal in Western culture.
This did not start the effective altruism subculture, but once it was going he joined in enthusiastically. The effective altruism subculture — as opposed to the concept of altruism that is effective — originated around LessWrong.
Later, the term was used in the form "effective altruist" by Yudkowsky himself in his blog post Scope Insensitivity, arguing against sentimentality and for utilitarian calculation in charity: Other names were used, e.
At its most hardcore, "earning to give" means getting the highest-paying job you can and then donating as much of it as possible up to some threshold, for sanity's sake.
After all, you can get more done by paying a bunch of other people to solve problems for you than you can do all on your own, right? However, 80, Hours, an organisation dedicated to giving career advice to wannabe effective altruists, published a blog post claiming that research showed that, depending on the type of stress, stress at work wasn't necessarily a big deal anyway and in some cases, people should consider just sucking it up and maybe "reframe stress as opportunity", in the interests of saving more children from malaria.
The powerful human instinct towards protection of one's offspring would tend to mitigate against such thinking when it came down to it - and if not, there's always social services.
It is unclear whether this behaviour is, on balance, inspirational, or whether it acts to drive away potential donors, activists and charity workers who might feel that this is a movement of exclusively privileged people that is remote from their lives and concerns.
Compounding the problem, effective altruism is regularly conflated, even inside the movement, with: The thinking of many EAs is that effective altruism is so obviously right, only people who were somehow in fundamental disagreement with EA values like doing nice things, and doing more and better things rather than fewer and worse things, would even consider not joining the movement Mosquito nets versus AI risk[ edit ] The ideas have been around a while, but the current subculture that calls itself Effective Altruism got a big push from MIRI and its friends in the LessWrong community, many of whom considered MIRI obviously the most effective charity in the world.
GiveWell's criticism of MIRI argued that MIRI's focus on supposedly trying to save the world and create "Friendly AI" amounted to a form of Pascal's Mugging — promising enormous benefits, even though the probability of actually receiving those benefits is tiny.
Reducing animal suffering is an important cause for a significant minority? One prominent effective altruist has put up for discussion on his blog the idea of destroying nature in order to reduce wild animal suffering.
However, this philosophy seems to imply that we should be willing to destroy the entire world to prevent one person from suffering a pinprick.
Part of the reason for this is that all EAs are in favour of "growing the pie" of EA supporters at this point in time, and most of them recognise that rancorous discussions would impede that goal.
Although ideas about targeting growth differently have been mooted, such as focusing more on trying to recruit the rich by hard-headed pragmatists or women and ethnic minorities by social justice people or people who don't speak English by people who think outside the English-speaking worldno-one is so pessimistic about their favoured EA cause area that they think that growing the pie won't gain their preferred cause area more EA recruits.
However, one EA has argued that this polite truce doesn't make sense, because if people think their cause is vastly better, they should be spending a lot of their time trying to persuade people of that.
In practice, this amounts to complaining when people try to solve local problemsfeeling bad when people eat hamburgers and sending money to Eliezer Yudkowskyrespectively.Happiness Paper By Sera Azimi Psy/ 12/20/15 Bhutanese happiness is not pleasure, not Disneyland fun. It is the ability to need less, not want more.
Finally, whilst promoting altruism ought to include making non-altruism relatively costly (Henrich et al., ), we must guard against believing that being aggressive towards non-altruists is the same thing as actually being altruistic – however righteous and similar they may sometimes appear (King et al., ).
D) incubation is a process that prevents thoughts from entering the subconscious mind A) incubation refers to the process of solving a problem after taking a break from conscious thought about a problem.
Term essays Fall These essays were written by students taking Physics Emergent States of Matter, Fall , at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
The copyright of each essay is due to the author. Please acknowledge the essay title, author, and this course in any citation to these articles. Oct 19, · Pure altruism, we think, requires a person to sacrifice for another without consideration of personal gain.
Doing good for another person because something’s in it for the do-er is the very opposite of what we have in mind. Essays in Philosophy publishes philosophical papers of quality which the editors believe will make a contribution to the literature on a certain topic.
The journal holds to no specific school of thought, mode of philosophizing, or style of writing. Each issue of the journal is devoted to a specific topic.