Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout
haven't archived this post yet. have a subscription? use the importer!

Downloads

  • wlop 73 edit.mp3
  • audio_preview.wav

Missing 2 files, as this post has not yet been imported.

Content

In this episode, we are joined by researcher and video essayist John Duncan (@Johntheduncan) to talk about the Effective Altruism movement and why it is so comprehensively awful. Granted, it’s got some pretty solid marketing: who could be against altruism, especially if it’s effective? But consider: from its individualism to its focus on cost-effectiveness and rates of return, from its idealist historiography to its refusal to cop to its obvious utilitarianism, from its naive empiricism to its wild-eyed obsession for preventing the Singularity—it’s really just the spontaneous ideology of 21st century capitalism cosplaying as ethics. Look, if your moral project involves you working in finance or for DARPA, sees new sweatshops in the global south as a good thing, and is beloved by tech bro billionaires, you’ve made a wrong turn somewhere. It’s deeply embarrassing and accordingly we drag it for filth.

leftofphilosophy.com | @leftofphil

https://www.youtube.com/@JohntheDuncan

References:

William MacAskill, “The Definition of Effective Altruism”, in Effective Altruism: Philosophical Issues, es. Hilary Greaves and Theron Plummer (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019).

William MacAskill, What We Owe the Future (New York: Hachette, 2022).

Adams et. al., The Good It Promises, The Harm It Does: Critical Essays on Effective Altruism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2023).

Music:

Vintage Memories by Schematist | schematist.bandcamp.com

Comments

Paul Bowman

So, I looked it up. Charles Dickens' novel Hard Times which includes the satirical character Mr Gradgrind, was published in 1854. So this aspect of bourgeois ideology - "The FACTS, dear boy, the FACTS! Nothing but the FACTS!" is not new. It's a long-standing pillar of bourgeois ideology - what I call the ideology of non-ideology - that "ideology" is what anti-bourgeois thinkers are doing, not their shit. Consequently, in order to promote and support their pet ideologists - and MacAskill is clearly that - they have to give them other titles. Unfortunately for you guys, the easiest label (from their pov) is to call them a philosopher. Michael Freeden's main reference work "Ideology and Political Theories: A Conceptual Approach" starts off with a disciplinary staking out, where he asserts that the reason political philosophy, as a discipline, has such trouble with ideology, is that because they are applying the wrong set of evaluative criteria. Whatever other criticisms I have of Freeden's approach (it's not a useful starting point for antifa work, for reasons), I think he has a point here. Doing a philosophical breakdown of how MacAskills ideological dribblings are sub-par on ethical, ontological and basic chains of reasoning/induction, etc, etc, are going to have pretty much zero impact on his unstoppable rise to being an influential "ideologist in chief" guru with very real network power and influence over the various state and capitalist actors (at least in the anglosphere). And to answer Lilian's question, yes, bourgeois ideology really has always been this rubbish.

Yona

so…a voice-phishing-utilitarianism…?