While reading Southan’s article a second time didn’t change my views on effective altruism, it allowed me to pick up on more subtle details in the text. I still find effective altruism much too radical for their own good and contradictory to their beliefs on increasing happiness. However it did increase my passion against the EA and changed my views on Southan himself. For starters, I noticed the belief of net positive calculations. It didn’t really hit me how ridiculous this idea was until now. It diminishes the value of peoples good deeds, because somewhere there is an imaginary person who’s good deeds negate yours. It sounds twisted to me to tell someone that only the good they achieve over this imaginary person actually counts. Second, the section comparing the EA to a utilitarian system were eerily similar. It seems like the only sacred thing to the EA is the lives they are saving. For me it sparked an image of a tyrannical society were the quality of life was of no concern. It seems like the EA has no respect to the quality of life of their workers, they just care about the money they bring in. Lastly, I really began to notice how Southan seems to react to the EA’s beliefs. As an artist I would have suspected him to push back against the EA’s beliefs. Instead it seems like although he isn’t ready to act upon them, he accepts their beliefs. Overall, the second reading really opened my eyes to details I had previously glossed over and not given much thought.

A word I didn’t understand from the reading was Ubermensch. However after a brief search I discovered Ubermensch was a philosophical German concept meaning superhuman or beyond-human. Ubermensch was commonly used to as a goal for humanity to strive for.

After reading Rhys Southan’s “Is Art a Waste of Time?” it is extremely hard to choose which two ideas I want to expand on. Through out every paragraph I couldn’t help but find myself extremely frustrated with the Effective Altruism movement. It was not the general idea of “doing good” that upset me, but rather the manner is which they do it.

First, I’ll start with my note on survival versus living. When I first wrote this note my thought was humans can just survive and worry about their basic needs and forget about art. Their lifespan would not be hindered by lack of art. Alternatively, they could “live” and enjoy life to its fullest including luxuries such as art, sports, games. But then I realized the significance of “living” rather than surviving. The latter choice would produce happiness, in turn this happiness would help us come together as a society. For an example, the Olympics games are not required for survival, but it brings the whole world together for friendly competition. These connections are important to get along as a globally connected society. The EAs, or Effective Altruists, would suggest we revert back to “surviving” and use any free time or extra resources on helping others “survive”. Yes more people might end up surviving, but there are major implications to that choice. Communication, understanding, and happiness once found in the luxuries of living would vanish. As a result I can only predict a rise in fights and depression.

Second, I underlined, circled, and even wrote down the word “Radical” numerous times. I agree that acts of kindness help the world go around. I feel when you have extra you should donate to charity, pay for someone’s meal, spend time building homes for the homeless, etc. However, EAs take this idea to a whole new level. They want people to devote their lives to helping others, with the goal of increased lifespan and happiness. This seems ridiculous. First off, this radicalism turns so many people away. If they reeled back their extremism they could target a much larger crowd and in turn, actually get more done. Second, having people stop doing what makes them happy and focus on donating everything they can, seems to contradict the rise in happiness the EA stand for. How am I suppose to be happy if all my dreams are crushed? The EA seems too radical. I would go far enough to say how radical they are is actually doing more damage than good to their cause.

Overall, it was hard to refine my thoughts on this article to two ideas and 300 words so if you have any questions, or any confusion to clear up, please leave a reply.