Altruism is, basically, a value and rationality does not tell you which values you should have.
I think the clearer question might be—Does rationality lead to effective altruism?
An easy answer might be rationality applied to altruism might lead to effective altruism; but rationality applied to life might not lead to altruism—and might lead away from it.
An easy answer might be rationality applied to altruism might lead to effective altruism
I am not sure even about that—the version of EA popular around here is quite utilitarinistic, if there’s such a word, and tends to assume things (like the value of random humans somewhere in Africa) which do not directly follow from either rationality or altruism.
I certainly understand the questionable value of random humans.
However; If you assume the fixed presence of altruism (and rationality isn’t going to consider doing something else as mentioned—i.e. self-learning resources). I still think that altruism can have a rationality applied to it and doing so would lead to at least a consideration of more effectiveness of altruism and only possibly to most effectiveness as the EA movement promote.
When applied: Giving $5 to the homeless person nearby may feel like an altruistic act, when questioned; giving $5 worth of food might be a more altruistically helpful act to the wellbeing of the person. (although debatably giving money might help more, and also giving clothes might help more depending on the situation, etc, etc...)
There is a place for rationality applied to altruism, but rationality applied to life may not yield altruism.
On a simple level—rationality being an achievement of “multiplicit winning at life”; a person’s definition of winning at their life may not include helping others or altruistic purposes/processes.
I think the clearer question might be—Does rationality lead to effective altruism?
An easy answer might be rationality applied to altruism might lead to effective altruism; but rationality applied to life might not lead to altruism—and might lead away from it.
I am not sure even about that—the version of EA popular around here is quite utilitarinistic, if there’s such a word, and tends to assume things (like the value of random humans somewhere in Africa) which do not directly follow from either rationality or altruism.
I certainly understand the questionable value of random humans.
However; If you assume the fixed presence of altruism (and rationality isn’t going to consider doing something else as mentioned—i.e. self-learning resources). I still think that altruism can have a rationality applied to it and doing so would lead to at least a consideration of more effectiveness of altruism and only possibly to most effectiveness as the EA movement promote.
When applied: Giving $5 to the homeless person nearby may feel like an altruistic act, when questioned; giving $5 worth of food might be a more altruistically helpful act to the wellbeing of the person. (although debatably giving money might help more, and also giving clothes might help more depending on the situation, etc, etc...)
There is a place for rationality applied to altruism, but rationality applied to life may not yield altruism.
On a simple level—rationality being an achievement of “multiplicit winning at life”; a person’s definition of winning at their life may not include helping others or altruistic purposes/processes.
Is that a fair assessment?
Yes, I think it’s a fair statement.