Solidarity Over Charity: Mutual Aid as a Moral Alternative to Effective Altruism.

IF 1.1 4区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS
Savannah Pearlman
{"title":"Solidarity Over Charity: Mutual Aid as a Moral Alternative to Effective Altruism.","authors":"Savannah Pearlman","doi":"10.1353/ken.2023.a904082","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Effective Altruism is a popular social movement that encourages individuals to donate to organizations that effectively address humanity's most severe poverty. However, because Effective Altruists are committed to doing the most good in the most effective ways, they often argue that it is wrong to help those nearest to you. In this article, I target a major subset of Effective Altruists who consider it a moral obligation to do the most good possible. Call these Obligation-Oriented Effective Altruists (OOEAs), and their movement Obligation-Oriented Effective Altruism (OOEA). I argue that, insofar as this variety of OOEA seems to commit us to refrain from helping the people right in front of us, there is something intuitively wrong about it. In response, I introduce an alternative model that embraces partiality: Mutual Aid. Mutual Aid is a network of community members, usually from the same geographical region, who share a commitment to offer, receive, and exchange material goods, wealth, and social support. I recommend Mutual Aid as a liberatory model, which-through empathy, solidarity, and care-mobilizes community-building and provides a catalyst for community advocacy. As such, we should resist the claims of OOEAs that partially distributing our funds to people or causes we care about is morally wrong or even less than ideal. We do not have a moral obligation to use our funds \"effectively\"; rather, we have a broader obligation to address human suffering, and Mutual Aid is one moral alternative for discharging this duty.</p>","PeriodicalId":46167,"journal":{"name":"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2023.a904082","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Effective Altruism is a popular social movement that encourages individuals to donate to organizations that effectively address humanity's most severe poverty. However, because Effective Altruists are committed to doing the most good in the most effective ways, they often argue that it is wrong to help those nearest to you. In this article, I target a major subset of Effective Altruists who consider it a moral obligation to do the most good possible. Call these Obligation-Oriented Effective Altruists (OOEAs), and their movement Obligation-Oriented Effective Altruism (OOEA). I argue that, insofar as this variety of OOEA seems to commit us to refrain from helping the people right in front of us, there is something intuitively wrong about it. In response, I introduce an alternative model that embraces partiality: Mutual Aid. Mutual Aid is a network of community members, usually from the same geographical region, who share a commitment to offer, receive, and exchange material goods, wealth, and social support. I recommend Mutual Aid as a liberatory model, which-through empathy, solidarity, and care-mobilizes community-building and provides a catalyst for community advocacy. As such, we should resist the claims of OOEAs that partially distributing our funds to people or causes we care about is morally wrong or even less than ideal. We do not have a moral obligation to use our funds "effectively"; rather, we have a broader obligation to address human suffering, and Mutual Aid is one moral alternative for discharging this duty.

慈善之上的团结:互助是有效利他主义的道德选择
摘要:有效利他主义是一项流行的社会运动,它鼓励个人向有效解决人类最严重贫困问题的组织捐款。然而,因为有效利他主义者致力于以最有效的方式做最大的好事,他们经常认为帮助最亲近的人是错误的。在这篇文章中,我的目标是有效利他主义者的主要子集,他们认为做尽可能多的好事是一种道德义务。这些人被称为义务导向的有效利他主义者(OOEA),他们的运动被称为义务导向的有效利他主义(OOEA)。我认为,如果这种OOEA似乎让我们不去帮助我们面前的人,那么从直觉上讲,它是错误的。作为回应,我介绍了另一种包含偏袒的模式:互助。互助是一个社区成员的网络,通常来自同一地理区域,他们共同承诺提供、接受和交换物质商品、财富和社会支持。我推荐互助会作为一种解放的模式,它通过同情、团结和关怀动员了社区建设,并为社区宣传提供了催化剂。因此,我们应该抵制ooea的说法,即将我们的部分资金分配给我们关心的人或事业在道德上是错误的,甚至是不理想的。我们没有“有效”使用资金的道德义务;相反,我们有更广泛的义务来解决人类的苦难,互助是履行这一义务的一个道德选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: The Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal offers a scholarly forum for diverse views on major issues in bioethics, such as analysis and critique of principlism, feminist perspectives in bioethics, the work of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, active euthanasia, genetics, health care reform, and organ transplantation. Each issue includes "Scope Notes," an overview and extensive annotated bibliography on a specific topic in bioethics, and "Bioethics Inside the Beltway," a report written by a Washington insider updating bioethics activities on the federal level.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信