Effective Altruism’s Underspecification Problem

Effective altruists either believe they ought to be, or strive to be, doing the most good they can. Since they’re human, however, effective altruists are invariably fallible. In numerous situations, even the most committed EAs would fail to live up to the ideal they set for themselves. This fact raises a central question about how to understand effective altruism. How should one’s future prospective failures at doing the most good possible affect the current choices one makes as an effective altruist? This question is important to answer not only because every effective altruist will face this question due to typical human akrasia, but also because how the question is answered will determine just how demanding effective altruism can be. I argue that no matter how effective altruists answer this question, they will have to take on some commitments seemingly antithetical to their movement. More precisely, I argue that effective altruism is subject to a dilemma. Effective altruists’, at times, implicit actualist assumptions (i) commit them to conclusions seemingly antithetical to what typical effective altruists actually believe, as well as the spirit of the movement and (ii) undermine effective altruists’ arguments against moral offsetting and giving to charities close to the heart. Yet, effective altruists’, at times, implicit possibilist assumptions (iii) also commit them to conclusions seemingly antithetical to what typical effective altruists actually believe, as well as the spirit of the movement and (iv) undermine typical responses to demandingness worries for the normative conception of effective altruism. I argue that the best way out of the dilemma is to accept hybridism, though even hybridism won’t preserve every commitment of effective altruism

A Case for Removing Confederate Monuments

A particularly important, pressing, philosophical question concerns whether Confederate monuments ought to be removed. More precisely, one may wonder whether a certain group, viz. the relevant government officials and members of the public who together can remove the Confederate monuments, are morally obligated to (of their own volition) remove them. Unfortunately, academic philosophers have largely ignored this question. This paper aims to help rectify this oversight by moral philosophers. In it, I argue that people have a moral obligation to remove most, if not all, public Confederate monuments because of the unavoidable harm they inflict on undeserving persons. In the first section, I provide some relevant historical context. In the second section, I make my unique harm-based argument for the removal of Confederate monuments. In the third section, I consider and rebut five objections

Sweatshops and Free Action: The Stakes of the Actualism/Possibilism Debate for Business Ethics

Whether an action is morally right depends upon the alternative acts available to the agent. Actualists hold that what an agent would actually do determines her moral obligations. Possibilists hold that what an agent could possibly do determines her moral obligations. Both views face compelling criticisms. Despite the fact that actualist and possibilist assumptions are at the heart of seminal arguments in business ethics, there has been no explicit discussion of actualism and possibilism in the business ethics literature. This paper has two primary goals. First, it aims to rectify this omission by bringing to light the importance of the actualism/possibilism debate for business ethics through questions about the ethics of sweatshops. Second, it aims to make some progress in the sweatshop debate by examining and defending an alternative view, hybridism, and describing the moral and practical implications of hybridism for the sweatshop debate

Determinants of Access to Job-related Health Insurance

Given that employer-sponsored health insurance plans are the single largest source of private health insurance, understanding the characteristics of those occupations that provide access to job-related health insurance may help researchers and policy makers focus on ways to broaden health insurance coverage. The purpose of this paper is to assess whether occupational and worker characteristics explain access to job related health insurance. It also examines the significance of those characteristics on having the employer or union pay for at least part of any job related health insurance. This study aggregates the Current Population Survey data on individuals into occupation level data to distinguish between jobs and occupations. This paper highlights some general trends in the characteristics of both occupations and workers that relate to the likelihood that an occupation will provide access to health insurance.

The (Un)desirability of Immortality

While most people believe the best possible life they could lead would be an immortal one, so‐called “immortality curmudgeons” disagree. Following Bernard Williams, they argue that, at best, we have no prudential reason to live an immortal life, and at worst, an immortal life would necessarily be bad for creatures like us. In this article, we examine Bernard Williams' seminal argument against the desirability of immortality and the subsequent literature it spawned. We first reconstruct and motivate Williams' somewhat cryptic argument in three parts. After that, we elucidate and motivate the three best (and most influential) counterarguments to Williams' seminal argument. Finally, we review, and critically examine, two further distinct arguments in favor of the anti‐immortality position

How to be an Actualist and Blame People

The actualism/possibilism debate in ethics concerns the relationship between an agent’s free actions and her moral obligations. The actualist affirms, while the possibilist denies, that facts about what agents would freely do in certain circumstances partly determines that agent’s moral obligations. This paper assesses the plausibility of actualism and possibilism in light of desiderata about accounts of blameworthiness. This paper first argues that actualism cannot straightforwardly accommodate certain very plausible desiderata before offering a few independent solutions on behalf of the actualist. This paper then argues that, contrary to initial appearances, possibilism is subject to its own comparably troubling blameworthiness problem

Actualism, Possibilism, and the Nature of Consequentialism

The actualism/possibilism debate in ethics is about whether counterfactuals of freedom concerning what an agent would freely do if they were in certain circumstances even partly determines that agent’s obligations. This debate arose from an argument against the coherence of utilitarianism in the deontic logic literature. In this chapter, we first trace the historical origins of this debate and then examine actualism, possibilism, and securitism through the lens of consequentialism. After examining their respective benefits and drawbacks, we argue that, contrary to what has been assumed, actualism and securitism both succumb to the so-called nonratifiability problem. In making this argument, we develop this problem in detail and argue that it’s a much more serious problem than has been appreciated. We conclude by arguing that an alternative view, hybridism, is independently the most plausible position and best fits with the nature of consequentialism, partly in light of avoiding the nonratifiability problem

Health Check of the CAP: What’s at stake? Egmont - European Affairs Publication, April 2008

At the end of 2007, the European Commission launched the Health Check (HC) of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). After a consultation with all stakeholders, legislative proposals were made in May 2008, on which the Agricultural Council is intending to agree before the end of 20081 which will be under the French EU Presidency The role of the European Parliament is consultative, but it would receive co-decision power once the Lisbon Treaty enters into force. This paper will try to indicate what is at play in the discussion on the HC, because the interests concerned are more diverse than we may assume. The debate on the HC is directly or indirectly linked with a wide range of issues that are of importance to the society. Of course, agriculture has always been about food production. But in rural areas, agriculture is not only an important economic factor but also an element of the regional policy and a strong incentive for decent land management. Furthermore, European consumers demand agricultural products of the highest quality, produced in an environmentally friendly way, with respect for animal life and health. Moreover, the surge of bio-energy has created another outlet for agriculture, namely contributing to a diversified and secure energy supply. Finally, European agriculture does not stand on itself. Finally, in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations in the Doha Development Agenda, European agriculture is under pressure to reduce more trade distorting elements of its CAP