Initially, I was very skeptical of what it meant to be a 'good' person. Previously, I held that, no matter the predicative weight of a moral contribution, whether that be negative or positive, one could rely solely on the material outcome to provide an indication of how effectively such actions should be pursued: this basically translates to the claim that, even if you are a bad person, you can still profit, and that judicatively thinking about how best to maximize value through this line of thought is preferable to languishing in an impractical categorical imperative, buying into the possibility of good when purchasing power itself is out of our hands. I've come to rescind this view, not after careful, well-thought out deliberation, but only hinted at as a possibility. To commit to effective altruism only out of an interest in ones own conditions may seem contradictory at first, but I would like to argue that, not only does it have practical benefits, it needn't disqualify one from the label of 'altruism' as duly noted by neoliberal detractors.
To be an effective altruist, one must have the means to committing to a common-sense good and, upon calculably determining the best way of maximizing the amount of good you can contribute given the resources you're provided with, can indeed convince themselves that they are making a difference. I don't mean to declaim that people cannot be good, or that such pursuits are inconsistent with the general danger of beleaguering representatives that might not profit from this good-will. I want to emphasize the practical component of altruism, mainly in paving the road to maximizing preferred outcomes: since, for instance, one must be in a position where they can allocate resources into a meaningful contribution, they must develop structures of habit which accord with this general aim, such as working to become a medical practitioner, or volunteering at the local homeless shelter, which might locally strengthen their social network. To become a humanitarian, one can work duly believing that their contribution will give a preferred payoff while ultimately, but subtly, obtaining other smaller payoffs as well, all of which collectively can improve ones QoL. It's understandable that there are those who don't have the resources to do this: the way I see it, however, it is preferable not to hone in on ones own inequality within the rat-race, since one must then inherit a sense of value from the social fabric which seeks to maximize the interests of the best-off, rather than achieving effective equilibria.
The Thatcheresque idea that one must accept individual accountability for their living conditions, that ultimately one bears responsibility to provide for those important to you, or else to pull up your bootstraps for the sake of those who have a vested interest in your success, is not something that I want to convey. Instead, one should work, not to further the interests of a disinterested, apathetic majority, but to give oneself value as a progenitor of good: that is to say, one can rely once more on the categorical imperative, mainly that in order to make a 'good' contribution, one must treat it as if something which can be universalized, effectively amounting to the claim that I must assume my contribution is good, and that refraining from contributing by reasoning that others already contribute would not be permissible. This in itself would naturally provide you with a support network of like-minded people, or at the very least with people who do have good in mind and are merely reticent to commit to good simply due to a lack of resources.
I'm still generally very pessimistic when it comes to life, but identifying that sudden spurs of energy that come from thinking of what good I can contribute has lent to developing my altruism. There is often stated an old, immaturely fashioned creed: "live in spite of others", which is something I have ultimately come to reject, as I believe a life of altruism is far more practical than a life of antipathy and one-upmanship. To be altruistic is, contrary to what others would like to believe, an effective dependency given weight by social institutions: living in terms of one-upmanship is a local, passing emotion arising from antipathy or negative associations, functioning only to fill a void.
I haven't thought about effective altruism too deeply yet, as the concept is still nascent in my mind. I wonder if anyone could elaborate on what I've said by extending this to male-female relationships?
TL;DR, production-value is important, but your contribution doesn't need to work against the interests of the worst-off. Effective altruism is Pareto efficient, unlike mere good-will, which might reveal instability.
Thoughts?
To be an effective altruist, one must have the means to committing to a common-sense good and, upon calculably determining the best way of maximizing the amount of good you can contribute given the resources you're provided with, can indeed convince themselves that they are making a difference. I don't mean to declaim that people cannot be good, or that such pursuits are inconsistent with the general danger of beleaguering representatives that might not profit from this good-will. I want to emphasize the practical component of altruism, mainly in paving the road to maximizing preferred outcomes: since, for instance, one must be in a position where they can allocate resources into a meaningful contribution, they must develop structures of habit which accord with this general aim, such as working to become a medical practitioner, or volunteering at the local homeless shelter, which might locally strengthen their social network. To become a humanitarian, one can work duly believing that their contribution will give a preferred payoff while ultimately, but subtly, obtaining other smaller payoffs as well, all of which collectively can improve ones QoL. It's understandable that there are those who don't have the resources to do this: the way I see it, however, it is preferable not to hone in on ones own inequality within the rat-race, since one must then inherit a sense of value from the social fabric which seeks to maximize the interests of the best-off, rather than achieving effective equilibria.
The Thatcheresque idea that one must accept individual accountability for their living conditions, that ultimately one bears responsibility to provide for those important to you, or else to pull up your bootstraps for the sake of those who have a vested interest in your success, is not something that I want to convey. Instead, one should work, not to further the interests of a disinterested, apathetic majority, but to give oneself value as a progenitor of good: that is to say, one can rely once more on the categorical imperative, mainly that in order to make a 'good' contribution, one must treat it as if something which can be universalized, effectively amounting to the claim that I must assume my contribution is good, and that refraining from contributing by reasoning that others already contribute would not be permissible. This in itself would naturally provide you with a support network of like-minded people, or at the very least with people who do have good in mind and are merely reticent to commit to good simply due to a lack of resources.
I'm still generally very pessimistic when it comes to life, but identifying that sudden spurs of energy that come from thinking of what good I can contribute has lent to developing my altruism. There is often stated an old, immaturely fashioned creed: "live in spite of others", which is something I have ultimately come to reject, as I believe a life of altruism is far more practical than a life of antipathy and one-upmanship. To be altruistic is, contrary to what others would like to believe, an effective dependency given weight by social institutions: living in terms of one-upmanship is a local, passing emotion arising from antipathy or negative associations, functioning only to fill a void.
I haven't thought about effective altruism too deeply yet, as the concept is still nascent in my mind. I wonder if anyone could elaborate on what I've said by extending this to male-female relationships?
TL;DR, production-value is important, but your contribution doesn't need to work against the interests of the worst-off. Effective altruism is Pareto efficient, unlike mere good-will, which might reveal instability.
Thoughts?
