Overleg:Effectief altruïsme

message: Sorry for writing in English, my Dutch is heel slecht. I'm far from an impartial observer because I'm the co-director at EA Netherlands, but I think the ethics section in this article is misleading. I'd be interested in hearing what others think. 
The section states that effective altruism implies that it is ok to take harmful jobs provided the overall benefits are greater than the harms, e.g., working in the tobacco industry and donating your earnings to effective interventions. However, we can easily see that as early as 2017, the main EA careers advice organisation, 80,000 Hours, advised against this. 
Unfortunately, the Wayback Machine archive isn't working for 2017, but it is for 2018. In this article they literally write: 
"We made some guesses at jobs that involve causing a significant amount of negative impact. These jobs are probably ruled out since the negatives are too great compared to the benefits, even if you donate. Some might also be morally impermissible for non-consequentialist reasons.
# Marketing and R&D for compulsive behaviours such as smoking, alcoholism, gambling, and payday loans"
They also write: 
"We believe that in the vast majority of cases, it’s a mistake to pursue a career in which the direct effects of the work are seriously harmful, even if the overall benefits of that work seem greater than the harms."
The examples they provide of when it might be OK are very different from the tobacco company example in the ethics section:
"That said, there might be exceptional circumstances in which you should take an option with serious negative impact, even if you’re not a consequentialist. For example, Oskar Schindler ran munitions factories for the Nazis, producing mess kits and, later, ammunition for Nazi soldiers, but in so doing was able to earn enough money to ensure the safety of 1,200 of his Jewish workers. He also deliberately ran the factory inefficiently, so that fewer munitions were produced. It’s hard to imagine a more unethical job than running a Nazi munitions factory, but Schindler is widely seen as a hero, and was celebrated in the movie Schindler’s List.
In an emergency, like Schindler found himself in, it can be permissible to have a significant negative impact in order to achieve a greater positive impact.
There are also clearly cases where it’s morally permissible to make individuals worse off. For instance, it’s permissible to fire an employee who’s performing badly, even though that will make their life worse."
I think anyone reading this article would come away with a very different impression of the ethical implications of effective altruism than what they would get reading the ethics section of this wikipedia page, and therefore it should be edited to be more accurate.  James.A.Herbert (overleg) 16 mei 2024 12:41 (CEST)
replies: text: A more accurate replacement might be something like:

text: "Effectief altruïsme raadt aan om schadelijke banen te vermijden, zelfs als de totale impact positief is. Zo wordt het niet aangeraden om in de tabaksindustrie te werken en je inkomsten te doneren aan effectieve interventies. Er zijn echter extreme gevallen waarin het acceptabel kan zijn, zoals Oskar Schindler die een nazi-munitiefabriek beheerde om levens te redden. Zijn acties tonen aan dat in noodsituaties een aanzienlijke negatieve impact gerechtvaardigd kan zijn om een groter positief effect te bereiken." James.A.Herbert (overleg) 16 mei 2024 12:53 (CEST)
thread_title:  Ethics section is misleading?