I think the core counterargument here is that the dictionary definition of a name isn’t intrinsically linked to the group, organization, or set of methods that adopt the name.
Suppose I support the Ruritanian Democratic Movement, which promises to turn Ruritania into a democracy.
After getting to power, its leader decides to set himself up as king for life, and the good name of the movement comes crashing down around him.
Supposing this hasn’t broken my faith in Ruritanian democracy, should I still call myself a member of the Ruritanian Democratic movement? Definitionally, I am, but, practically, that doesn’t sound like the best way to achieve Ruritanian democracy.
It may be that the name is so tainted that continuing to keep it in the public eye distracts and demoralizes anyone who believes in the cause.
It may also be that the methods associated with the group were likely to lead to this undesirable outcome, and a clean break from them would better achieve the goals of its true believers.
Dispensing with the metaphors, what is the semantic difference between saying “I support charitable giving” and “I am an Effective Altruist”? To my understanding, the core difference is one of methods—the charitable giver selects charities heuristically, based on what he sees an immediate need for in the world, while the effective altruist poses that there is a more efficient strategy for achieving the same ends, by maximizing each dollar’s marginal impact on some objective function. Identifying why EA has seen the problems it has, and how this relates to the difference in methods, would, as best I can tell, be critical to determining whether “I am an Effective Altruist” is more preferable to say than “I support charitable giving”.
I think the core counterargument here is that the dictionary definition of a name isn’t intrinsically linked to the group, organization, or set of methods that adopt the name.
Suppose I support the Ruritanian Democratic Movement, which promises to turn Ruritania into a democracy.
After getting to power, its leader decides to set himself up as king for life, and the good name of the movement comes crashing down around him.
Supposing this hasn’t broken my faith in Ruritanian democracy, should I still call myself a member of the Ruritanian Democratic movement? Definitionally, I am, but, practically, that doesn’t sound like the best way to achieve Ruritanian democracy.
It may be that the name is so tainted that continuing to keep it in the public eye distracts and demoralizes anyone who believes in the cause.
It may also be that the methods associated with the group were likely to lead to this undesirable outcome, and a clean break from them would better achieve the goals of its true believers.
Dispensing with the metaphors, what is the semantic difference between saying “I support charitable giving” and “I am an Effective Altruist”? To my understanding, the core difference is one of methods—the charitable giver selects charities heuristically, based on what he sees an immediate need for in the world, while the effective altruist poses that there is a more efficient strategy for achieving the same ends, by maximizing each dollar’s marginal impact on some objective function. Identifying why EA has seen the problems it has, and how this relates to the difference in methods, would, as best I can tell, be critical to determining whether “I am an Effective Altruist” is more preferable to say than “I support charitable giving”.