Effective Altruism (EA) is a social movement which focuses on improving our utility towards others — darthbarracuda

are you doing enough — darthbarracuda

Obvious answer: of course not. Mea culpa. I have not done those things I ought to have done, and when I did do them, I didn't do a very good job of it, and I resented your needing assistance to start with. Next time, solve your own damn problems.

But "utility toward others" involves complicated relationships, even if altruism is a simpler helping relationship.

Purchasing the game console was not an altruistic act, but it had definite utility to the salesman whose livelihood depends on selling game consoles. Accepting the pamphlet about Jesus from the street preacher (which you tossed in the trash can) wasn't an altruistic act, but it had utility to the street preacher: taking the brochure was a small validation of the preacher's efforts. Buying the farmer's sweet corn is an act of commerce, but it contributes directly to his livelihood.

Millions of people are engaged in work which is officially altruistic: the helping professions -- everyone from psychoanalysts on down to nursing assistants who change the diapers of bed-bound patients. Many of the tasks for which helping professionals are paid are also acts of altruism.

We (society) expect parents to take care of their children. Doing a diligent job raising children isn't an act of altruism, but there is great utility in doing the job well, and it is a blessing on everyone concerned when the job is done well. And so on.

We are tied up in webs of mutual utility to one another. Many people act altruistically to the people in the immediate community.

Now some people, presumably, avoid interaction with other people; They buy as little as possible; they perform jobs which only most remotely benefit anyone (if then). They are single. They do not have children. They do not maintain a relationship with their family. They are social isolates, sort of Ebenezer Scrooges. They may not commission harm to anyone, but they omit a great deal of benefit to anyone.

Be a good citizen, be a good parent (or child), be a good neighbor, be a good worker. Involve yourself in your community. Help others when you can. Avoid harming others. It's not that hard to be effectively altruistic.

For most people who like 'dong a lot,' I can't help but think that they ought to do even more and put a bullet through their head. Je je

For most people who like 'dong a lot,' I can't help but think that they ought to do even more and put a bullet through their head. Je je — The Great Whatever

What the hell bro. I don't know what to say to this.

If you care about suffering, you'll do something about it.

Are you morally deficient for not donating a significant, if not a majority, of your income to charities?

I prefer to be 'glass half full' about it. I could say I am morally deficient - which is sad, but I prefer to say I have room for moral improvement, which is good, because improvement is great.

It's like my quest for lifelong education. Instead of saying 'there's so much of which I'm ignorant' I can think 'there's so much exciting stuff I can learn'.

Having used at least two clichés already (is that a bannable offence on a philosophy forum?), why stop now, so I'll add:
'Let us not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good'

Peter Singer has a really good approach to this, published in his book 'The life you can save'. He doesn't criticize people for not giving, but rather seeks to awaken them to the desirability of their giving as much as they can. He asks them to ask themselves not 'am I giving enough' but rather 'could I give more?', and then 'will I give more?' Very few people will end up selling all they own and giving it to Oxfam, but plenty will give more than they otherwise would have.