Considering Sam Bankman-Fried claimed to practice #effectiveAltruism, and the fact that he makes substantial political donations, I thought we can validate to some extent whether his effective altruism is bogus or genuine. I thought this would be easily settled. If he favors democrats, he’s putting humanity above wealth & tyranny. If republicans, the altruistic claim can be easily dismissed.
It turns out #SamBankmanFried donated to democrats and republicans both. It’s unclear if the donations were equally effective for both parties, but interesting that he donated to dems in-the-clear while hiding donations to republicans. One of the notable donations went to a congressman who was most critical of cryptocurrency. So naturally he had to bribe that politician.
Dems were surprised to find that he also donated to republicans (and by his own admission!). Had he donated to both parties in transparency, recipients could see their opponent is also being fed and disregard the donation (i.e. give no preferential treatment). Seeing all the recipients would reveal if there were at least a consistent ideology or philosophy in play.
I have to conclude the political donations were likely all just to promote his own success. It does not completely nix the claim of effective altruism because he would argue it was purely a wealth accumulation endeavor as a precursor to effective altruism. But I have to say someone who is fully engaged in the idea of effective altruism would be irresistibly selective in who receives political contributions even at the cost of reduced wealth. A humanitarian would not be able to stomach the idea of financing a republican war chest.
You also have to figure that since he chose to make dem financing transparent and repub financing in the dark, he inherently gave republican recipients full view of it. That’s only viable if he donates much more to republicans who would see that he donates mere peanuts to the opponent for optics.
See, you’ve written this long reply (and I appreciate your commitment) to attack republicans, yet you still could not credibly defend the Democratic Party. To be against the Republican Party does not automatically make you a Democrat, truly such a one-dimensional spectrum is only conceivable in the land of incoherences of yours. For instance, communists staunchly attack republicans, yet they equally attack the democrats, arguing (rightfully, in my opinion) that both are two sides of the same coin which is capitalism/liberalism.
I want to go back to the roots of our debate in order to recalibrate, and that is the fact that you’ve created quite the frail and unnecessarily complicated moral compass which, ironically, adds no philosophical value. Instead of basing your evaluation of SBF on a shallow criterion of political funding (which leads to many problematic conclusions due to the ideological indeterminacy which plagues American political parties), you can directly employ, like any sane person would, a humanist compass (granted that humanism has its caveats). You should then be asking whether EA conforms to the conceptions of humanism, on the short but also long term, and should future generations be prioritised over present beings?
It does. You’re not accepting the reality of a 2-party system. Democrats encompass the green party voters as well, in effect, because it’s a 2 party system. Democrats broadly have extensive variation united in opposition to the republican platform. Democrats do not have a single org or two that sums up the whole party. The closest notable org that embodies the values of democrats would be the ACLU. But the ACLU is much more narrow to dem’s values than ALEC & NRA are to the republicans. But since you’re complexity averse, I suggest just looking at ACLU’s campaigns and missions compared to ALEC to understand the differences you’re trying to grasp between the parties.
Altruism in not compatible with the basic core agenda of the republican platform. Opposing the positions I listed is a sufficient defense for the party of any republican opposition with respect to campaign financing in a two party system. If you’re Sam Bankman-Fried claiming to spend money on altruism, the republican party is a clear antithesis of that endeavor, thus not a credible recipient. As unfavorable as it is to be trapped in a 2-party system, you’re lost on the simplicity of this.
You’re not grasping the basic political framework of the US. You can finance communists in the US but the results are no different than setting your money on fire. They are not a viable party (assuming they even exist - they may be operating under a different name). Furthermore, bringing communists up only muddies the waters because SBF did not contribute to them. He only contributed to Ds and Rs.
The 2-party system is not complicated. It’s the contrary. It’s simple to a detrimental fault. And because the republican values are what they are, it’s actually trivially simple to work out which party an altruistic philanthropist would favor. They have no choice.
You’ve misunderstood the thesis. It was not an overall appraisal of Sam Bankman-Fried. There are a lot topics we can discuss and countless approaches to solving the world’s social problems. The topic is specifically about Sam Bankman-Fried’s claim to adhere to effective altruism. If that does not interest you, you should not have entered the thread. You can create threads about whatever you find more interesting than SBF EA.