Effective altruism as a tower of assumptions
&gt; It would be called something like How To Respond To Common Criticisms Of Effective Altruism (In Your Head Only, Definitely Never Do This In Real Life), and it starts:<p>Either you would “never do this” because you feel that it would hurt the cause or because you realize that all of those initial responses are completely fallacious.<p>“Steel man” those questions. It is obvious that they are attacking the intellectual ideas behind EA. But you’re conflating actions, moral character, and ideas.<p>Here’s a steel man of one of the “questions” (assertions):<p>Q: [Given that you are going to commit to donating 10% of your time or money or whatever and do X:] I think charity is a distraction from the hard work of systemic change. [Therefore you should put that 10% towards systemic change instead.]<p>&gt; Foundational Assumptions<p>Say I accept these. Then I make my next assumptions:<p>1. I value my direct experience over second-hand experience, statistics, and science<p>2. Because I think (1) helps inform me better so that I can be true to the Foundational Assumptions (being effective)<p>3. I think Utilitarianism as a guiding framework is completely useless and won’t help me stay true to the Foundational Assumptions<p>4. I know my family and community better than I know people outside that circle, which helps me stay true to the Foundational Assumptions (being effective)<p>5. I will therefore focus 95% of my good-doing activities on very local help<p>Would I still be in the EA club?