Interview, Podcast
Is effective altruism just for consequentialists? | Andreas Mogensen (2022)
- Andreas Mogensen posits that the current moment may be uniquely significant in history, potentially necessitating immediate resource expenditure rather than waiting for a future decisive event.
- A response to Will McCaskill's paper challenging the Hinge of History hypothesis is currently being written and is expected to be published online soon.
- Philosophical analysis is anticipated to clarify distinctions between direct expenditure and investment, though significant progress on framing these issues has not yet been achieved.
- Virtually all non-consequentialist philosophers are expected to view donating 10% of income to effective charities as morally praiseworthy, with many considering it obligatory.
- Many non-consequentialist philosophers are predicted to disagree with maximizing total welfare in trade-offs between saving a single life and granting trivial benefits to large populations.
- Non-consequentialists are expected to exhibit greater skepticism regarding obligations to create additional happy lives compared to consequentialists, potentially limiting their adherence to deontic strong long-termism.
- Skepticism is anticipated regarding the utilitarian claim that one ought to help the person who can be benefited the most if the difference in benefit is not substantial.
- A forthcoming paper argues that a positive rate of pure intergenerational time preference can be justified by moral partiality, though it likely cannot support the extreme conclusions of constant exponential discounting.
- It is claimed that it is not morally wrong to choose bringing a person with a shorter, less good life into existence over one with a better life, despite the latter being a better outcome.
- The ideal of authenticity is expected to be widely adopted as a personal ideal, potentially leading some to resist charitable giving guided solely by impartial concern.
- Andreas Mogensen intends to argue in a forthcoming paper in the European Journal of Philosophy that the "deep or central self" required for authenticity does not exist.
- The relationship between ethical theories and effective altruism is expected to show more agreement on broad mental dispositions, such as intellectual integrity and curiosity, than on fine-grained questions regarding right action or the theory of the good.
- Some colleagues may question Mogensen's classification as a true non-consequentialist given that his views frequently coincide with consequentialist practical conclusions.
- Non-consequentialists might be expected to prioritize cause areas involving the rectification of injustices where they are complicit or beneficiaries more highly than typical effective altruists.
- Existing empirical literature does not currently support large number skepticism, though further research could potentially find evidence of an inappropriate upper bound in human response to very large numbers.
- The human inability to grasp very large numbers is suggested as a potential explanation for resistance to the idea that minor benefits could outweigh a single significant harm, though this remains an unresolved empirical question.
- Evolutionary debunking arguments are expected to be viewed as too easily applied to generate broad skepticism about the external world, suggesting they do not uniquely undermine moral beliefs.
- Moral facts are claimed to potentially figure into the explanation of why humans acquire moral beliefs without necessarily explaining why those beliefs were selectively advantageous over evolutionary time.
- Mogensen's meta-ethical views have shifted frequently over the past 15 years, moving from anti-realism to naturalist realism, then to non-cognitivism, and finally to non-naturalist realism.
- A paper currently in progress by Jacob Barrett and Lauren Fricell is expected to demonstrate that the neglectedness heuristic can mislead prioritization in socio-political contexts involving tipping points.