Back
"A Systematic Response to Criticisms of Effective Altruism in the Wake of the FTX Scandal" (Dec 22, 2022)
webgospeldemands.com·gospeldemands.com/2022/12/22/a-systematic-response-to-cri...
A December 2022 apologetic piece defending Effective Altruism following the FTX scandal; relevant as an example of post-FTX EA reputation management discourse, though not a primary AI safety resource. The domain suggests a Christian ethics framing.
Metadata
Importance: 18/100opinion piececommentary
Summary
This article offers a structured defense of Effective Altruism (EA) against criticisms that emerged following the FTX/Sam Bankman-Fried collapse in late 2022, arguing that the scandal reflects failures of individuals rather than the EA framework itself. It attempts to disentangle EA's core principles from the utilitarian reasoning sometimes associated with 'earn to give' and high-risk strategies. The piece is written from a perspective sympathetic to EA, likely with Christian or gospel-oriented framing given the domain.
Key Points
- •Argues that FTX's collapse and SBF's misconduct should not be attributed to EA philosophy as a whole, but to individual ethical failures.
- •Addresses specific criticisms of EA including its relationship to ends-justify-means reasoning and utilitarian risk-taking.
- •Attempts to rehabilitate EA's reputation by distinguishing legitimate EA practices from the 'earn to give by any means' rationalization.
- •Written from an apparent Christian ethical perspective, adding a theological lens to the EA debate.
- •Represents post-FTX discourse examining how EA's association with SBF affected broader public and donor trust.
Cited by 1 page
| Page | Type | Quality |
|---|---|---|
| FTX Collapse: Lessons for EA Funding Resilience | Concept | 78.0 |
Cached Content Preview
HTTP 200Fetched Apr 9, 202698 KB
A Systematic Response to Criticisms of Effective Altruism in the Wake of the FTX Scandal | What the Gospel Demands
Summary
Effective altruism (EA) has been in the news recently following the crash of a cryptocurrency exchange and trading firm, the head of which was publicly connected to EA. The highly-publicized event resulted in several articles arguing that EA is incorrect or morally problematic because EA increases the probability of a similar scandal, or that EA implies the ends justify the means, or that EA is inherently utilitarian, or that EA can be used to justify anything. In this post, I will demonstrate the failures of these arguments and others that have been amassed. Instead, there is not much we can conclude about EA as an intellectual project or a moral framework because of this cryptocurrency scandal. EA remains a defensible and powerful tool for good and framework for assessing charitable donations and career choices.
Note: This is a long post, so feel free to skip around to the sections of particular interest using the linked section headers below. Additionally, this post is available as a PDF or Word document .
Summary
Introduction
Effective Altruism Revealed
My Background
SBF Association Argument Against Effective Altruism Was SBF Acting in Alignment with EA?
SBF Denies Adhering to EA?
EA is Not Tainted by SBF An Irrelevant “Peculiar” Connection
Skills in Charity Evaluation ≠ Skills in Fraud Detection in Friends
EA Does Not Problematically Increase the Risk of Wrongdoing
Genetic Utilitarian Arguments Against Effective Altruism Genetic Personal Argument Against EA
Genetic Precursor Argument Against EA
A Movement’s Commitments are not Dictated by the Belief Set of Its Leaders
EA Leaders are Not All Utilitarians
Do the Ends Justify the Means? Some Ends Justify Some Means
Some Ends Justify Trivially Negative Means
No End Can Justify Any Means
A Sufficiently Positive End Can Justify a Negative Means
Absolutism is the Problem
Paradoxes of Absolute Deontology
Application to the FTX Scandal
Effective Altruism is Not Inherently Utilitarian [Minimal] EA Does Not Make Normative Claims
EA is Independently Motivated Theory-Independent Motivation: The Drowning Child
Martin Luther’s Drowning Person
Virtue Theoretic Motivation: Generosity and Others-Centeredness
EA Does Not Have a Global Scope
EA Incorporates Side Constraints
EA is Not Committed to the Same Value Theory
EA Incorporates Moral Uncertainty
Objections
Sub-Conclusion
Can EA/Consequentialism/Longtermism be Used to Justify Anything? All Families of Moral Theories Can Justify Anything
Specific Moral Theories Do Not Justify Any Action
Specific EA and Longtermism Frameworks Do Not Justify Any Action
Takeaways and Conclusion
Post-Script
End
... (truncated, 98 KB total)Resource ID:
d0642532f40fe3ea | Stable ID: sid_kHX1UXvold