In the wake of the sentencing of SBF last week there were two mighty takedowns of effective altruism: one (here) “The Deaths of Effective Altruism Sam Bankman-Fried is finally facing punishment. Let’s also put his ruinous philosophy on trial” — described as a ‘firebombing’ by
"Wenar's argument is reminiscent of the way advocates of continued reliance on coal, oil and gas suddenly start worrying about the environmental consequences of wind turbines and lithium mining.
I infer that Wenar doesn't like EA for non-consequentialist reasons, but can't articulate a broadly convincing argument along these lines. So, he throws a bunch of bad consequences against the wall, in the hope that something will stick."
I was only responding to Richard, without having read Wenar, so I wasn't aware of Wenar's ad hominem introduction to the argument, which, I think, confirms my inference.
My comment on Richard Pettigrew's post was
"Wenar's argument is reminiscent of the way advocates of continued reliance on coal, oil and gas suddenly start worrying about the environmental consequences of wind turbines and lithium mining.
I infer that Wenar doesn't like EA for non-consequentialist reasons, but can't articulate a broadly convincing argument along these lines. So, he throws a bunch of bad consequences against the wall, in the hope that something will stick."
I was only responding to Richard, without having read Wenar, so I wasn't aware of Wenar's ad hominem introduction to the argument, which, I think, confirms my inference.
Well, I find it puzzling because he has good non-consequential arguments available to himself