Comment by jefftk
20 days ago
> It's dangerously close to the EA belief that it's actually OK to be a ruthless exec for a tobacco company, because you can do good things with your money that you wouldn't be able to do if you quit the job.
That's not an EA belief. While EAs have made arguments somewhat in this direction, being a tobacco exec is just incredibly harmful and no one should do it: https://80000hours.org/2016/01/just-how-bad-is-being-a-ceo-i...
(80000 Hours is the primary EA career advising organization)
The obvious answer is to be a tobacco exec, sabotage the organization from within, and donate to charity.
Yeah, it's definitely an EA belief! If you look at the end of the article they show you a link to a response on the EA forum.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/4N5BsDkcWjr5MRSQy/...
EA is one of the most evil ideologies out there.
The post you're linking to is not arguing that you should become a tobacco exec, it's arguing that 80k has not sufficiently made the case that a tobacco exec who donated all their income thoughtfully would still be causing net harm.
Reading both articles, I think it depends a lot what strategy the exec employs. If they optimize for getting people to become addicted to smoking or increase how much they smoke (growing the market) then I think it's really unlikely they could donate enough to make up for that enormous harm. On the other hand, if they optimize for increasing profitability by increasing prices and advocating for regulation that acts as barriers to new entrants, and especially if the person who would otherwise have the role would be optimizing for growing the market, then it's likely their work is positive on it's own, regardless of donating.
So, you're saying that from a EA perspective, it can in fact be okay to be a tobacco executive. QED.
1 reply →