Effective Altruism

[Darth Executor]

You're going to need to unpack that if you want me to understand what you mean by it. I note that any idea of morality makes demands on individuals or groups. That's not a 'problem' that's unique to utilitarianism. Obviously any atheists who are utilitarians, such as myself, feel that there is sufficient justification for our own utilitarianism, so I'm not sure what you mean by 'without justification'.

All make demands but most give you a reason to do it. IE: hedonism tells you to do whatever feels good, which we are already inclined to do because there's an obvious and inherent payoff in that philosophical system. Religions offer benefits like an afterlife, etc. Utilitarianism OTOH demands everything from you and offers nothing in return. So why would anyone adopt it?

Your statements seem bizarre given they are coming from someone who purportedly holds to a religions that teaches that God's commands / goals must be the goals that people aim for irrespective of their own person needs. So I am confused as to how you are objecting to the idea of believing in overarching goals that we should subordinate our lives to.

In Christianity your personal needs are met by following God's commands. IMMEDIATE needs may not be met, but there's supposed to be a bigger, permanent payoff at the end. Without the payoff it makes absolutely no sense to inconvenience yourself for the benefit of an abstract majority.

I'm vaguely aware, to the extent I ever read your posts, that you seem to hold some sort of nihilist and social-Darwinist views, or perhaps appear to think that atheists ought to hold such views.

I'd expect an atheist to hold a hedonist/nihilist combination view. Acknowledge that everything is ultimately meaningless and do whatever feels best for you because it has obvious and innate value. That is if the atheist is rational. Most (at least in the West) OTOH seem to prefer joining the progressive death cult which takes what it can from them before discarding them. Like a cult.

(Offhand I can't say I'm aware of any atheists of my acquaintance or whom I follow online who holds to either one of those) So are you simply trying to argue that utilitarianism is not a justifiable position to hold if one is an atheist? (It seems like the existence of the high percentage of atheists who are utilitarians would hence need some explaining on your part)

People adopt religious beliefs for irrational reasons all the time, and atheists are no exception. So I'm not sure why there being a high percentage of atheists who are utilitarians needs explanation. It's obvious a lot of you have serious mental issues and hormonal imbalances that more than adequately explain this.

[Starlight]

All make demands but most give you a reason to do it. IE: hedonism tells you to do whatever feels good, which we are already inclined to do because there's an obvious and inherent payoff in that philosophical system. Religions offer benefits like an afterlife, etc. Utilitarianism OTOH demands everything from you and offers nothing in return. So why would anyone adopt it?

Some 'selfish' motivations for wanting to do good to others include:
- that we evolutionarily evolved as herd animals and simply have innate motivations to be benevolent to those around us
- that we have love for friends and family and want to do good toward them, and we want them to live good lives so we want the people they care about to also live good lives so that our friends and family are happy
- psychologists have found people get a strong sense of joy and satisfaction in life from doing good things toward others, charitable actions give people a sense of meaning and fulfillment and happiness
- psychologists have found that emotions are contagious, and when people around us are happy, we are more likely to become happy, so if we want to increase our own happiness then living in a society where others are happy is a good way to do it
etc.

I'd expect an atheist to hold a hedonist/nihilist combination view. Acknowledge that everything is ultimately meaningless and do whatever feels best for you because it has obvious and innate value. That is if the atheist is rational.

I suggest that the fact that most atheists don't hold such a view should really lead you to reexamine your prediction. As far as your claim that atheists should "acknowledge that everything is ultimately meaningless", I think you have it utterly 100% backward, and I wrote an explanation of why here. Intelligent beings find various things meaningful to them: Relationships, family, friendships, experiences etc. The sum total of everything everyone finds meaningful is the ultimate meaning in the universe.

People adopt religious beliefs for irrational reasons all the time,

True, as evidenced by yourself.

[Tassman]

That's such a juvenile response. That's all you are, Tazzy -- a big goofus with ZERO credibility.

RIGHT!

[shunyadragon]

The problem with utilitarianism as described in the OP is that it hijacks an individual (or a group) and demands that they do the best for everybody, all without justification. It simply proclaims that the utilitarian goal must be the goal that we should aim for, irrespective of our own personal needs (except insofar as they too serve utilitarianism).

False, please provide a source that defines utilitarianism in this way. Utilitarianism does not demand anything. Neither does it define a specific we should aim for, irrespective of personal needs.

Actually utilitarianism includes a number of diverse philosophies that propose a natural explanation for normative morals and ethics. Some cite older 'Classical Utilitarianism' proposed by Bentham and Mill that equated good with pleasure, but more recent proposals give a more real picture like that of Henry Sedgewick, who rejected Bentham and Mill's approach, which does not remotely describe utilitarianism as you describe. Even the outdated approach of Bentham amd Mill takes into consideration of human needs where good is equated with pleasure (fulfillment of human needs and desires.).

[Darth Executor]

Some 'selfish' motivations for wanting to do good to others include:
- that we evolutionarily evolved as herd animals and simply have innate motivations to be benevolent to those around us

That's not motivation to be egalitarian, it's motivation to be hedonistic.

[/quote]- that we have love for friends and family and want to do good toward them, and we want them to live good lives so we want the people they care about to also live good lives so that our friends and family are happy[/quote]

Same.

- psychologists have found people get a strong sense of joy and satisfaction in life from doing good things toward others, charitable actions give people a sense of meaning and fulfillment and happiness

- psychologists have found that emotions are contagious, and when people around us are happy, we are more likely to become happy, so if we want to increase our own happiness then living in a society where others are happy is a good way to do it
etc.

Same.

To say nothing of the fact that doing good for the people around you, or family, is not even necessarily utilitarian. Certainly not as described in the OP, where people in the West are all supposed to give up 50% of their income to help out people on the other side of the planet. I think it's quite a confirmation of my previous post that you end up giving a bunch of reasons for hedonism rather than utilitarianism. It's because, as I said, utilitarianism provides no reason to adopt, just imposes

I suggest that the fact that most atheists don't hold such a view should really lead you to reexamine your prediction.

No, that would imply most atheists are rational which they are not. But in practice, that is pretty much how most atheists do act. Not as utilitarians, but hedonists.

As far as your claim that atheists should "acknowledge that everything is ultimately meaningless", I think you have it utterly 100% backward, and I wrote an explanation of why here. Intelligent beings find various things meaningful to them: Relationships, family, friendships, experiences etc. The sum total of everything everyone finds meaningful is the ultimate meaning in the universe.

I don't see an argument, just a really long-winded way of re-asserting the same thing. Anyway, I don't find this debate particularly interesting. I don't doubt atheists think things like family are meaningful to them, and that's not what is being said when theists claim everything is ULTIMATELY meaningless in atheism (key word in all caps).

True, as evidenced by yourself.

Not at all. I never adopted my beliefs in the first place and they withstand the intellectually bankrupt assaults launched against them quite well, to say nothing of the fact that Christianity is highly utilitarian and would be a rational belief to adopt even if you are an atheist. Conversely, you ditched your intellectual tradition and replaced it with that of a suicidal, dysgenic cult. It's no surprise you see black as white and white as black.

[Darth Executor]

The problem with utilitarianism as described in the OP

False, please provide a source that defines utilitarianism in this way.

Shuny, just so you know, when we say you're dumb it's not just an insult. You really are one of the dumbest people posting here, by a long mile.

[seer]

Shuny, just so you know, when we say you're dumb it's not just an insult. You really are one of the dumbest people posting here, by a long mile.

[Starlight]

That's not motivation to be egalitarian, it's motivation to be hedonistic.

Well selfish motivations to do utilitarian good inevitably boil down to motivations to be hedonistic in the sense that the type of hedonism you're referring to is a selfish version of utilitarianism. Some non-selfish motives to do utilitarian good include:
- "I want to make the world a better place"
- "I want to do the most good I can do"
- "I want to be a good person"
- "I want to leave the world better than I found it"
- "I want to be a person who is loving, kind, and compassionate"
- "I want to help others as much as possible"
etc

that would imply most atheists are rational which they are not.

I have belonged to a variety of intellectual / rational-thinking / philosophy groups and clubs both at university and outside it, whos purpose is/was to do nothing other than discuss ideas and their logical and rational implications. Thus they contain some of the most thoughtful and logical people who enjoy rationality for rationality's sake. I observe both that people in those groups tended to be atheists, and also that they tended to strongly endorse utilitarianism and want to do utilitarian good. (I note there's a difference between acknowledging that utilitarianism is the correct description of morality vs actually doing good, in the same way there's a difference between acknowledging God's existence vs actually obeying his commands. I think utilitarianism is a measure of morality in the same way I think a km or mile is a measure of distance, it is a valid way of measuring morality quite apart from whether any given person decides they want to be a good person)

that's not what is being said when theists claim everything is ULTIMATELY meaningless in atheism (key word in all caps).

To me that phrase is oxymoronic (and moronic) and incoherent. Meaning, by definition, is ascribed to things by intelligent beings. NOTHING is meaningful in and of itself, by definition. You just can't have 'ultimate' meaning in terms of being something that stands above and beyond all the various other things that humans find meaningful. You can, though, have meta-meaning where you find meaningful the existence of meaning in the world. Which is essentially secular humanism.

[Darth Executor]

Well selfish motivations to do utilitarian good inevitably boil down to motivations to be hedonistic in the sense that the type of hedonism you're referring to is a selfish version of utilitarianism. Some non-selfish motives to do utilitarian good include:
- "I want to make the world a better place"
- "I want to do the most good I can do"
- "I want to be a good person"
- "I want to leave the world better than I found it"
- "I want to be a person who is loving, kind, and compassionate"
- "I want to help others as much as possible"
etc

All of those are selfish since you are doing those because they bring you pleasure. Which is my point originally. None of these are objective reasons for doing them. You "want to be a good person" but what if someone doesn't want to be a good person? Hedonism says "it's ok, do what you want, that's what we're about". But utilitarianism demands that you must do what it tell you you have to do, even if you don't want to.

I have belonged to a variety of intellectual / rational-thinking / philosophy groups and clubs both at university and outside it, whos purpose is/was to do nothing other than discuss ideas and their logical and rational implications. Thus they contain some of the most thoughtful and logical people who enjoy rationality for rationality's sake. I observe both that people in those groups tended to be atheists, and also that they tended to strongly endorse utilitarianism and want to do utilitarian good. (I note there's a difference between acknowledging that utilitarianism is the correct description of morality vs actually doing good, in the same way there's a difference between acknowledging God's existence vs actually obeying his commands. I think utilitarianism is a measure of morality in the same way I think a km or mile is a measure of distance, it is a valid way of measuring morality quite apart from whether any given person decides they want to be a good person)

Most of these groups tend to be horribly incestuous. I've observed this in just about every online community I've been to. Even tweb, which is fairly heterogenous for a message board, leans heavily Christian. Most intellectuals live in self-reinforcing bubbles. But I've found this to be particularly true of atheist/leftist message boards. The right wing/Christian boards i visit , while homogenous in these respects, are outright war zones more often than not with multiple factions and intertwined loyalties, endless backstabbings and skirmishes, etc. Conversely I've tried to add similar communities for atheists/liberals just to keep tabs on the enemy but they inevitably tend to be boring, repetitive, and what little conflict there is tends to decline into low T girly slapfights.

To me that phrase is oxymoronic (and moronic) and incoherent. Meaning, by definition, is ascribed to things by intelligent beings. NOTHING is meaningful in and of itself, by definition. You just can't have 'ultimate' meaning in terms of being something that stands above and beyond all the various other things that humans find meaningful. You can, though, have meta-meaning where you find meaningful the existence of meaning in the world. Which is essentially secular humanism.

You can in a theistic universe, but not an atheistic one. Thanks for finally agreeing with us that atheism is ultimately meaningless, but theism is not.

[Starlight]

You "want to be a good person" but what if someone doesn't want to be a good person?

Then they can be not a good person.
The measure of goodness exists regardless of whether they are good, just like the measure of length exists regardless of how tall a person is. The existence of the measure, and how well they rank on the measure are two different things.

But utilitarianism demands that you must do what it tell you you have to do, even if you don't want to.

I find your phrasing weird. "utilitarianism demands" implies utilitarianism is an entity that can demand things, and is like saying "the metric system of measurement demands you be as tall as possible".

Even tweb, which is fairly heterogenous for a message board, leans heavily Christian.

TWeb is one of the more insular message boards I've ever seen.

Conversely I've tried to add similar communities for atheists/liberals just to keep tabs on the enemy but they inevitably tend to be boring, repetitive, and what little conflict there is tends to decline into low T girly slapfights.

Probably not surprising since they probably all agree on the basics, i.e. on atheism and that it implies liberalism and progressivism and utilitarianism and secular humanism etc. i.e. it is not surprising to me that atheist intellectuals largely all agree with each other and all agree you are wrong, because you are wrong, and furthermore as an atheist intellectual I'm aware that yes they do tend to largely agree with each other along the lines I've described.

Thanks for finally agreeing with us that atheism is ultimately meaningless, but theism is not.

Dumbass, I literally called your claims "incoherent" and "moronic", which is in no way the same as agreeing with them. To reemphasize: theism cannot have 'ultimate meaning' any more than atheism can, because that phrase is nonsensical and impossible in the way you are trying to use it. What you can have is meta-meaning where one finds the existence of meaning itself to be meaningful, and you can have that in both atheism and theism. Theism brings nothing whatsoever to the table to contribute to discussions of meaning, and certainly doesn't make the phrase 'ultimate meaning' any less idiotic.

[Darth Executor]

Then they can be not a good person.
The measure of goodness exists regardless of whether they are good, just like the measure of length exists regardless of how tall a person is. The existence of the measure, and how well they rank on the measure are two different things.

There is zero evidence what you claim is the measure of good actually is the measure of good, and there is absolutely no incentive to follow it even if there was. This puts utilitarianism at the absolude bottom of the ideology garbage heap, being neither useful nor rational (and I would argue the two are inextricably linked).

I find your phrasing weird. "utilitarianism demands" implies utilitarianism is an entity that can demand things, and is like saying "the metric system of measurement demands you be as tall as possible".

There's nothing weird about my phrasing. It's used to refer to things you are supposed to do as part of an ideology all the time. IE:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/14/o...iberalism.html

Liberalism demands acceptance of our human differences and the ability to mediate them through democratic institutions. It demands acceptance of multiple, perhaps incompatible truths. In an age of declamation and shouting, of polarization and vilification, of politics-for-sale and the insidious submersion of politics in fact-lite entertainment, the emergence of Trump is as unsurprising as it is menacing.

TWeb is one of the more insular message boards I've ever seen.

I highly, highly doubt that. Not that Tweb isn't insular, but compared to the average atheist/prog board? Absolutely. You don't get that because like most progrs you think your echo chamber is diversity.

Probably not surprising since they probably all agree on the basics, i.e. on atheism and that it implies liberalism and progressivism and utilitarianism and secular humanism etc. i.e. it is not surprising to me that atheist intellectuals largely all agree with each other and all agree you are wrong, because you are wrong, and furthermore as an atheist intellectual I'm aware that yes they do tend to largely agree with each other along the lines I've described.

No, that level of consensus on philosophical matters is highly abnormal and almost always representative of group think rather than independently arriving at the same conclusion. In this particular case it's easy to demonstrate so because you've tried (and failed) to provide the absolute minimum required of any ideology: a reason to follow it.

Dumbass, I literally called your claims "incoherent" and "moronic", which is in no way the same as agreeing with them. To reemphasize: theism cannot have 'ultimate meaning' any more than atheism can, because that phrase is nonsensical and impossible in the way you are trying to use it. What you can have is meta-meaning where one finds the existence of meaning itself to be meaningful, and you can have that in both atheism and theism. Theism brings nothing whatsoever to the table to contribute to discussions of meaning, and certainly doesn't make the phrase 'ultimate meaning' any less idiotic.

Theism can have ultimate meaning because God, who is beyond humans, can instill that meaning. Atheism cannot, because there is no greater mind to do so for the atheist. Seems pretty clear cut to me.

[Bisto]

Hi SL! I have two questions today :-). Neither concerns Effective Altruism, so if it's too off-topic for your tastes, you can just PM me.

Probably not surprising since they probably all agree on the basics, i.e. on atheism and that it implies liberalism and progressivism and utilitarianism and secular humanism etc. i.e. it is not surprising to me that atheist intellectuals largely all agree with each other and all agree you are wrong, because you are wrong, and furthermore as an atheist intellectual I'm aware that yes they do tend to largely agree with each other along the lines I've described.

What do you think about politically, economically and socially right-wing atheists? One of my best friends at university is one. (Another one is a Marx-loving socialist atheist, so when it comes to ideologies they basically hate each other )

Dumbass, I literally called your claims "incoherent" and "moronic", which is in no way the same as agreeing with them. To reemphasize: theism cannot have 'ultimate meaning' any more than atheism can, because that phrase is nonsensical and impossible in the way you are trying to use it. What you can have is meta-meaning where one finds the existence of meaning itself to be meaningful, and you can have that in both atheism and theism. Theism brings nothing whatsoever to the table to contribute to discussions of meaning, and certainly doesn't make the phrase 'ultimate meaning' any less idiotic.

Would your preferred thesis of the computer game / computer simulation add any meaning to the universe, in your opinion? Perhaps not the notion of 'ultimate meaning' that you have here discarded, but a more robust definition you could make? If you could build such a robust definition for that thesis, would it be applicable to a Theistic universe as well, in your opinion?

[Starlight]

What do you think about politically, economically and socially right-wing atheists?

That they are wrong on those issues. Christians are also fairly widely distributed across the political spectrum.

One of my best friends at university is one.

I suspect if you talk to him you will find he agrees with the same basic utilitarian premises I do. He will probably agree that he wants to make the world a better place, would like to see a society in which everyone was happier and more successful etc. Where he would part ways with someone like me is likely to be with regard to what political policies he thinks best accomplish those goals. If he has read and believed books by Ayn Rand, or if he was grown up in a conservative family, or been heavily influenced by right-wing websites, he might have come to really and truly believe that right wing conservative political policies create the best society in which people are the happiest and thrive the most. I would say his ideas about the consequences of different political policies are misguided, but that his general underlying aims to maximize societal well-being via political policies are something he and I likely share.

Would your preferred thesis of the computer game / computer simulation add any meaning to the universe, in your opinion? Perhaps not the notion of 'ultimate meaning' that you have here discarded, but a more robust definition you could make?

Nope, not as far as I can see. It could, I suppose, potentially provide additional selfish motivations to do good to others - e.g. it's possible those strangers you're doing good to are actually your family or friends in the outside-the-computer game world, or even perhaps those strangers are you in a another in-game life (perhaps the computer game multi-tasks your mind among multiple lives the way a computer CPU 'simultaneously' runs multiple applications by constantly switching between them).

If you could build such a robust definition for that thesis, would it be applicable to a Theistic universe as well, in your opinion?

I don't think a theistic universe makes any difference to 'meaning' than an atheistic one. God if he exists, can have purposes and goals and can find things meaningful. That's it. That doesn't really add anything, since we know humans definitely exist and definitely have purposes and goals and find things meaningful. So we already have purposes and goals and meaning in the universe, courtesy of the fact that intelligent beings exist. God would be simply one more intelligent being in addition to the already-existing billions of them. A universe without God would have a heck of a lot of beings in it finding things meaningful, and a universe with God would have a heck of a lot of beings in it finding things meaningful, so there's no real difference.

I think that if you want to find some sort of 'ultimate meaning' (a phrase I cringe at) you're best to look for it in some sort of meta-meaning - i.e. you find meaning itself meaningful, or your purpose is to further the existence of intelligent beings having purposes. There's a sort of aesthetically pleasant logically-foundation circularity in a statement like "the most ultimately meaningful thing is meaning itself" because nothing is more the essence of itself than the thing itself. To phrase it another way: meaning, purpose, and self-awareness are all the Platonic Forms of themselves.

[Starlight]

In this particular case it's easy to demonstrate so because you've tried (and failed) to provide the absolute minimum required of any ideology: a reason to follow it.

I listed about a dozen common motivations that people have.

Theism can have ultimate meaning because God, who is beyond humans, can instill that meaning.

How does he 'instill' that meaning? Does he inject it into your veins in a syringe, or are we talking more like carbonating water? Please do explain this process of how God adds this ultimate meaning.

Atheism cannot, because there is no greater mind to do so for the atheist.

You obviously haven't witnessed the full greatness of my mind.

[Bisto]

That they are wrong on those issues. Christians are also fairly widely distributed across the political spectrum.

I suspect if you talk to him you will find he agrees with the same basic utilitarian premises I do. He will probably agree that he wants to make the world a better place, would like to see a society in which everyone was happier and more successful etc. Where he would part ways with someone like me is likely to be with regard to what political policies he thinks best accomplish those goals. If he has read and believed books by Ayn Rand, or if he was grown up in a conservative family, or been heavily influenced by right-wing websites, he might have come to really and truly believe that right wing conservative political policies create the best society in which people are the happiest and thrive the most. I would say his ideas about the consequences of different political policies are misguided, but that his general underlying aims to maximize societal well-being via political policies are something he and I likely share.

Yup, that's more or less it.

Nope, not as far as I can see. It could, I suppose, potentially provide additional selfish motivations to do good to others - e.g. it's possible those strangers you're doing good to are actually your family or friends in the outside-the-computer game world, or even perhaps those strangers are you in a another in-game life (perhaps the computer game multi-tasks your mind among multiple lives the way a computer CPU 'simultaneously' runs multiple applications by constantly switching between them).

Have you watched Toy Story? I was thinking maybe the toys' being played with gave them meaning beyond themselves, the meaning they find in the hands of the kids, crafting stories with them. Or the meaning NPCs get as participants in the PC's world. The whole game in your thesis may be said to be given the collective meaning of its meta purpose -- to allow for all those interactions, big and small, to take place. If all those interactions are themselves valuable and desirable to the game-makers, and the reason they made the game in the first place, does the whole not have all sorts of little intrinsic meanings given by its makers?

I remember when I was a kid I thought up all sorts of video games, for which I drew characters and settings. None of them ended up as anything other than memories of things that did not come to be, and drawings of designs that did not get past the sketch board, but all of them do, nonetheless, mean something to me -- even with nobody to be even able to play them. So much so if I had made them into actual games for others to enjoy. I think that value is of a kind only a game-maker, a movie director, a scriptwriter, a business entrepreneur, a context-for-other-agents-originator, a creator, is able to understand. The value of creating things for others to enjoy and give meaning to. That meaning may be intrinsic to the thing thus made, even if only its maker understands it in full -- as in my drawings of never-played games.

I don't think a theistic universe makes any difference to 'meaning' than an atheistic one. God if he exists, can have purposes and goals and can find things meaningful. That's it. That doesn't really add anything, since we know humans definitely exist and definitely have purposes and goals and find things meaningful. So we already have purposes and goals and meaning in the universe, courtesy of the fact that intelligent beings exist. God would be simply one more intelligent being in addition to the already-existing billions of them. A universe without God would have a heck of a lot of beings in it finding things meaningful, and a universe with God would have a heck of a lot of beings in it finding things meaningful, so there's no real difference.

See my barely coherent ramblings above.

I think that if you want to find some sort of 'ultimate meaning' (a phrase I cringe at) you're best to look for it in some sort of meta-meaning - i.e. you find meaning itself meaningful, or your purpose is to further the existence of intelligent beings having purposes. There's a sort of aesthetically pleasant logically-foundation circularity in a statement like "the most ultimately meaningful thing is meaning itself" because nothing is more the essence of itself than the thing itself. To phrase it another way: meaning, purpose, and self-awareness are all the Platonic Forms of themselves.

You lost me near the end :p but, in all fairness, it's late and I'm about to go to bed. Be well ;)