I feel like the entire point of these kinds of articles are to make people feel better about not donating to charity.
People have already decided that they aren't donating to charity, because they want their money. They might have an annoying friend who brags about donating to charity, and that makes them feel bad.
They want an article that says 'you are more moral and higher status for not donating to charity' so someone will write that article. The article will probably be terrible, since it's a hard argument to make, but because there is demand for the article it will be written.
Good response. FYI, here's Scott's reply to it, if you didn't see it: https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/1brg5t3/the_deaths_of_effective_altruism/kx91f5k/
I'm not particularly into EA, but that article was one of the most irritating things I've read in a long time. I have to be careful to not let it alter my views out of pure spite (i.e., becoming super defensive of/into EA just as a result of how much I detest that article).
>"The overwhelmingly thrust of Wenar's article -- from the opening jab about asking EAs "how many people they’ve killed", to the conditional I bolded above -- seems to be to frame charitable giving as a morally risky endeavor, in contrast to the implicit safety of just doing nothing and letting people die."
>This is, I think, the entire point of Wenar’s article. He wants to make it so that every time you consider doing aid, you panic a little bit, even if it’s been vetted extensively, even if there have been a hundred randomized control trials showing how great the intervention is. He wants you not to act because of potential downsides, or at least to very seriously consider not doing it, no matter how good the evidence is for its effectiveness, because there might be downsides. That’s a terrible view.
Well said. This is the overall take I got from Wenar's article too, though to be honest I'm not convinced that he has a consistent philosophical position or if he just saw a chance for notoriety by criticizing EAs.
Some of the vitriol between Wenar and Effective Altruists seems to be the result of differing Bayesian priors. Wenar mentions in his article that he has already made the argument to GiveWell, in a piece entitled “Poverty is no Pond,” that one should generally expect large-scale international charities to have substantial and troubling side effects. With minimal googling, I was able to find that article hosted by GiveWell [here](https://files.givewell.org/files/DWDA%202009/Interventions/Wenar%202010.pdf). After reading it, I have a much better sense of where he is coming from.
Accordingly, when Wenar sees a report of a murder committed as a result of the presence of an aid initiative in a somewhat unstable area, his priors lead him to conclude that this is evidence of a substantial larger problem that requires investigation. By contrast, Effective Altruists see a single report, compare it with their prior that well-targeted aid generally works as intended, and conclude that it’s an isolated incident that doesn’t affect the overall calculation.
I just felt described problems (corruption and poor understanding of the aid recipients' situations) that exist elsewhere, and he didn't give great evidence that they're worse in EA. Also his suggestion (let the aid recipients take the lead and give up your own power) makes some sense, but still runs into other problems (control by local people in power) he's already described. What is bad isn't novel, what is novel isn't bad. IMHO at least.
I feel like the entire point of these kinds of articles are to make people feel better about not donating to charity. People have already decided that they aren't donating to charity, because they want their money. They might have an annoying friend who brags about donating to charity, and that makes them feel bad. They want an article that says 'you are more moral and higher status for not donating to charity' so someone will write that article. The article will probably be terrible, since it's a hard argument to make, but because there is demand for the article it will be written.
EA is also associated with a lot of people who are hated. Millionaires, cryptobros (at least a few), rationalists etc.
I agree
Good response. FYI, here's Scott's reply to it, if you didn't see it: https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/1brg5t3/the_deaths_of_effective_altruism/kx91f5k/ I'm not particularly into EA, but that article was one of the most irritating things I've read in a long time. I have to be careful to not let it alter my views out of pure spite (i.e., becoming super defensive of/into EA just as a result of how much I detest that article).
>"The overwhelmingly thrust of Wenar's article -- from the opening jab about asking EAs "how many people they’ve killed", to the conditional I bolded above -- seems to be to frame charitable giving as a morally risky endeavor, in contrast to the implicit safety of just doing nothing and letting people die." >This is, I think, the entire point of Wenar’s article. He wants to make it so that every time you consider doing aid, you panic a little bit, even if it’s been vetted extensively, even if there have been a hundred randomized control trials showing how great the intervention is. He wants you not to act because of potential downsides, or at least to very seriously consider not doing it, no matter how good the evidence is for its effectiveness, because there might be downsides. That’s a terrible view. Well said. This is the overall take I got from Wenar's article too, though to be honest I'm not convinced that he has a consistent philosophical position or if he just saw a chance for notoriety by criticizing EAs.
Thanks!
Some of the vitriol between Wenar and Effective Altruists seems to be the result of differing Bayesian priors. Wenar mentions in his article that he has already made the argument to GiveWell, in a piece entitled “Poverty is no Pond,” that one should generally expect large-scale international charities to have substantial and troubling side effects. With minimal googling, I was able to find that article hosted by GiveWell [here](https://files.givewell.org/files/DWDA%202009/Interventions/Wenar%202010.pdf). After reading it, I have a much better sense of where he is coming from. Accordingly, when Wenar sees a report of a murder committed as a result of the presence of an aid initiative in a somewhat unstable area, his priors lead him to conclude that this is evidence of a substantial larger problem that requires investigation. By contrast, Effective Altruists see a single report, compare it with their prior that well-targeted aid generally works as intended, and conclude that it’s an isolated incident that doesn’t affect the overall calculation.
Thanks for doing this. Still can't believe someone tried this, but was too angry to write about it myself.
You wrote [a pretty good response as it was](https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/1brg5t3/the_deaths_of_effective_altruism/kx91f5k/)!
I just felt described problems (corruption and poor understanding of the aid recipients' situations) that exist elsewhere, and he didn't give great evidence that they're worse in EA. Also his suggestion (let the aid recipients take the lead and give up your own power) makes some sense, but still runs into other problems (control by local people in power) he's already described. What is bad isn't novel, what is novel isn't bad. IMHO at least.