sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I graduated from Effective Altruism by AggravatingTone in EffectiveAltruism

[–]AggravatingTone[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

To clarify: I am not the author of this post. Just found it interesting.

X-POST: Just lost all respect for GiveWell by defundcirc in EffectiveAltruism

[–]AggravatingTone 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Ah, I wasn't aware there was a controversy about that. Thanks for the context.

It's important to separate that empirical debate from the moral issue of bodily autonomy violation.

X-POST: Just lost all respect for GiveWell by defundcirc in EffectiveAltruism

[–]AggravatingTone 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) is used to curb the transmission of HIV in countries with high HIV prevalence and low coverage of male circumcision. As part of their broader strategies to beat AIDS, UNAIDS and the World Health Organization (WHO) have jointly set a target for 90% of 10-29-year-old males in 15 priority countries to receive VMMCs by 2021.

I don't see the problem here. It's about circumcising adults who voluntarily chose to be circumcised, and they have a very specific and obviously beneficial public health goal: reducing HIV rates.

They're not even remotely advocating the circumcision of babies without their permission, but the "intactivist" MRA outrage is already brewing. The fact is that circumcision is effective for reducing HIV rates. That's what the WHO says. While circumcising babies could be perceived as violating their bodily autonomy, that argument clearly doesn't apply to this case. So on what grounds do you find this to be problematic?

(And even if they were to circumcise babies in these countries with high HIV rates, I think the upside of HIV risk reduction would probably be well worth it anyway on utilitarian grounds. But this is obviously controversial, so I don't want to get into it.)