Can you save the world? Explore our latest newsletter insights and debater editorials. Read the full newsletter here: opentodebate.org/newsletter-does-effective-altruism-get-giving-right/ Sign up for our weekly newsletters here: opentodebate.org/newsletter
What a wonderful moderator, keeping up with the conversation and trying to keep things on track, and also politely stopping the inevitable monologues of audience questions. Well done! I'm also with the general sentiment here: The "No"-side of the debate constantly failed to be specific about its criticisms, and hence didn't really convince me of anything. GiveWell has been specifically mentioned several times and was even present in the QA section, yet apart from a vague "They haven't studied something to warrant their application of the scientific method" nothing of substance came up. I also didn't really get a picture of what the alternative is and why it is better. This is not a philosophy debate where you can ponder what the correct position is - people want to help now and need a specific approach they can apply right now.
Alice is committing the no true Scotsman fallacy. The EA I know is the EA Singer is describing, there isn’t another one. Why she speaks of the founders of EA as if he is not one of them, I also don’t understand.
As far as I can tell from her vague points, Crary is arguing ..."Stop convincing people to spend their charity on your rationally justified causes because they are sometimes ignorantly arrogant, ineffective, or counterproductive. I want that money to go to the longstanding charity industry that I am a part of, whose spending is based on our subjective/unspecified self designated "expert" justifications." She completely ignores that the charity industry she is trying to protect is much more ignorantly arrogant, ineffective, and counterproductive, as well as extremely bloated, parasitic, nontransparent, evidence vacant, emotionally justified, and inefficient. As always ..the question ignored by the Crary's of the world, who are primarily focused on what they want to tear down because it doesn't satisfy their fantasy utopia, is ..."compared to what?". I have many criticisms of EA, but it's much better/more productive/more effective at improving the world than the traditional altruistic/charitable/activist industry. Re one specific ...the explicit or implied criticisms that EA is elitist and condescending is hypocritical in the extreme. Also ...well noted by @urikamoment ...Crary want's to argue against her strawman, not the position/argument in front of her.
crary seems to think that to stop child deaths from malaria you need to get a BA in colonial history and then overthrow the global capitalist order, rather than distribute malaria nets
Can you save the world? Explore our latest newsletter insights and debater editorials. Read the full newsletter here: opentodebate.org/newsletter-does-effective-altruism-get-giving-right/
Sign up for our weekly newsletters here: opentodebate.org/newsletter
Alice provided very wishy-washy criticisms, whereas Peter Singer provided many specific examples to support his arguments.
What a wonderful moderator, keeping up with the conversation and trying to keep things on track, and also politely stopping the inevitable monologues of audience questions. Well done!
I'm also with the general sentiment here: The "No"-side of the debate constantly failed to be specific about its criticisms, and hence didn't really convince me of anything. GiveWell has been specifically mentioned several times and was even present in the QA section, yet apart from a vague "They haven't studied something to warrant their application of the scientific method" nothing of substance came up. I also didn't really get a picture of what the alternative is and why it is better. This is not a philosophy debate where you can ponder what the correct position is - people want to help now and need a specific approach they can apply right now.
Alice is committing the no true Scotsman fallacy. The EA I know is the EA Singer is describing, there isn’t another one. Why she speaks of the founders of EA as if he is not one of them, I also don’t understand.
As far as I can tell from her vague points, Crary is arguing ..."Stop convincing people to spend their charity on your rationally justified causes because they are sometimes ignorantly arrogant, ineffective, or counterproductive. I want that money to go to the longstanding charity industry that I am a part of, whose spending is based on our subjective/unspecified self designated "expert" justifications." She completely ignores that the charity industry she is trying to protect is much more ignorantly arrogant, ineffective, and counterproductive, as well as extremely bloated, parasitic, nontransparent, evidence vacant, emotionally justified, and inefficient. As always ..the question ignored by the Crary's of the world, who are primarily focused on what they want to tear down because it doesn't satisfy their fantasy utopia, is ..."compared to what?". I have many criticisms of EA, but it's much better/more productive/more effective at improving the world than the traditional altruistic/charitable/activist industry. Re one specific ...the explicit or implied criticisms that EA is elitist and condescending is hypocritical in the extreme. Also ...well noted by @urikamoment ...Crary want's to argue against her strawman, not the position/argument in front of her.
you guys make the best videos
crary seems to think that to stop child deaths from malaria you need to get a BA in colonial history and then overthrow the global capitalist order, rather than distribute malaria nets
Great discussion!
these don't even sound like ideas, its so vague. its just a sentiment