You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all
comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a single comment's thread.
I think I've only ever seen cause-neutrality used to mean cause-impartiality.
I think one aim here is to stop people from conflating other things with cause impartiality, which does seem like an unhelpful thing that people occasionally consciously or subconsciously do.
The discussion of CFAR's pivot to focusing on existential risk seemed to use "cause-neutral" to mean something like "cause-general".
Confusingly, the way "cause-neutral" was used there directly contradicts its use here: there, it meant avoiding cause-impartially favoring a specific cause based on its apparent expected value, in favor of a cause-partial commitment to pet causes like rationality and EA capacity-building. (Admittedly, at the organizational level it often makes sense to codify some "pet causes" even if in principle the individuals in that organization are trying to maximize global welfare impartially.)
© 2017 Effective Altruism Forum |
Powered by reddit