> why does involvement with EA imply being ethically challenged?

Because almost everyone prominent in the movement has had some combination of lack of judgment and morals. There various terms for rationally pursuing philanthropy; associating with effective altruism involves embracing its ideas, people and culture.

▲

YetAnotherNick 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think the central finding in EA is donating money while earning good is better than donating time directly for charity. To me it seems correct but controversial for many people(likely because you are maximizing your personal income)

▲

JumpCrisscross 20 hours ago | parent [-]

> the central finding in EA is donating money while earning good is better than donating time directly for charity

EA has many tenets, some of make sense per se, but collectively–particulalry when taking into account that EA isn't just an idea but a movement of people with a distinct culture and track record–probably do more harm than good.

▲

YetAnotherNick 20 hours ago | parent [-]

What doesn't make sense? I thought expected wealth optimization was the most controversial thing by far.

▲

JumpCrisscross 20 hours ago | parent [-]

> What doesn't make sense?

Well, for one, the frequency of its members committing mass fraud.

Like, if a church preaches kindness and love but its preachers and members are constantly out there murdering people, it's a bit silly to point to the text alone when evaluating the organisation.

	▲	yorwba 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What do you think the frequency of EAs committing mass fraud is? How many cases are you basing that on? What does that imply about the size of the EA movement? Does that number make sense? Like, if a church had 100,000 members, you would indeed expect them to commit a few murders each year. And GiveWell alone claims to have induced 150,000 people to donate... https://www.givewell.org/default/citations#Number_of_donors

▲

wbl 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

And yet they do more good than the moral critics do.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 20 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> yet they do more good than the moral critics do Going to need a good source for that crowd having done more good than the frauds of even just their most-notorious members. Masquerading as an altruist to justify massive management fees for running a fund of concentrated, leveraged positions is one of the oldest lipsticks on financial pigs.
	▲	glitchc 20 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Moral critics save a lot of lives by not doing. Sometimes not doing is the best moral option ex. I will not kill or I will not exploit. And it does not come cheap. Someone who says "I will not work for Facebook" is taking a stand at the expense of significant personal gain.