Comment
The app for independent voices
I already had some misgivings about your “moral misdirection” article to begin with, and seeing you use it in this context has amplified them. On the other hand, when I see that quote from Scott Alexander, in your footnote, I find it fairly sympathetic. Thinking it over, I realise that I’m reading Scott as participating in an argument on a first-order level: you’ve said your views and now I am going to say mine. By contrast, I’m reading you as participating on a second-order level: you’ve said …
I thought I was very explicit that you're (pretty much) always "allowed to say" your views -- see the sections on "how to criticize good things responsibly" (previous post) and "responsible criticism" (this post). I'm rather offering a general view about *which ways* of expressing one's views are more or less intellectually responsible.
This general view about responsible discourse is as open to evaluation as any other moral claim. I'm most interested in first-order disagreement about whether it…
The problem is, when you stipulate that criticism has to be “responsible” in order to be permissible, you’re introducing a secondary debate about what “responsible” means in this context. People who disagree with you on object-level claims are more likely to also disagree with you on second-order claims about which statements are “responsible.” Accordingly, second-order requirements like this ought to be loosely and generously applied, recognising that subjective impressions of “responsible” tone can be even harder to agree on than object-level claims.
So let’s apply your requirements, loosely and generously, to the case of Leif Wenar’s article. You have two main points. Firstly, people who agree with TSPG (or “other important neglected truths”) should clarify that up front. Secondly, people should only give the impression that “EAs are stupid and wrong about everything” if they actually believe this, in which case they should explain why they think this is true.
Wenar has done both of these things. I don’t think he agrees with TSPG as EAs apply it in practice, but he does affirm an alternate neglected principle — namely, that of ethical cosmopolitanism. He writes “Hundreds of millions of people were living each day on less than what $2 can buy in America. Fifty thousand people were dying every day from things like malaria and malnutrition. Each of those lives was as important as mine.” He’s also clear that he thinks most Effective Altruists are well-meaning people who sincerely want to help. And, yes, I think he is sincere in believing that EA is wrong about most things. He relates having spent a long time in his own sincere effort to find out what kinds of large-scale international aid are truly effective. His conclusion seems to be that it mostly isn’t.
Accordingly, I think this is best dealt with as an object-level disagreement. Wenar is giving the impression that EAs are foolish and wrong because, based on his own attempts to do what they are doing, he sincerely believes that they are, in fact, foolish and wrong. Calling him “irresponsible” for accurately conveying this belief is missing the point.