Hm :( I agree with the need for empathy, and for active, personal charity. And that I've heard from people I trust how toxic EA like communities can end up from an ostensibly good aim.
But I'm also disappointed by "Haha! Utilitarianism has these flaws so lets completely dismiss it." If everyone is nice, but only ever helps people they can physically see at the time, does that form a perfect society with no flaw? Really really? Or do ALL ethical systems have flaws, and you need to consider multiple approaches including utilitarianism?
I mean, yes, if someone is saying "utilitarianism is the answer to everything and you never need to consider anything else", then you can prove them wrong by pointing out one (1) case where utilitarianism produces a "wrong" answer. But "not what that pers says" doesn't help anyone decide what TO do. Ideally people would actively help, not just knock down every suggestion that isn't perfect.
It’s called effective altruism – but is it really the best way to do good?
But I'm also disappointed by "Haha! Utilitarianism has these flaws so lets completely dismiss it." If everyone is nice, but only ever helps people they can physically see at the time, does that form a perfect society with no flaw? Really really? Or do ALL ethical systems have flaws, and you need to consider multiple approaches including utilitarianism?
I mean, yes, if someone is saying "utilitarianism is the answer to everything and you never need to consider anything else", then you can prove them wrong by pointing out one (1) case where utilitarianism produces a "wrong" answer. But "not what that pers says" doesn't help anyone decide what TO do. Ideally people would actively help, not just knock down every suggestion that isn't perfect.