Morality Is Still Demanding

I turned the knob up to 11 on demandingness in the Insanity Wolf Sanity Test. (The first section, "Altruism" is the most relevant here.)

Of course, I intend that section as a critique of the monstrous egregore that (in my opinion) is utilitarianism. But that is the true denial of supererogation. If you don't want to go as far as Insanity Wolf, where do you stop and why? Or do you go modus ponens to my modus tollens and accept the whole thing?

I think it was strategically valuable for the early growth of EA that leaders denied its demandingness, but I worry some EAs got unduly inoculated against the idea.

You mean, they lied, then people believed the lies? Or are the lies for the outer circle and the public, while the inner circle holds to the secret, true doctrine of all-demandingness? I am not playing Insanity Wolf with that suggestion. Peter Singer himself has argued that the true ethics must be kept esoteric.

It may be strategic about intrinsic value for a small group of people to suffer to implement highly demanding altruistic lifestyles of their own authentic diligence, but for everyone to operate at the extremes of altruism would make everything suck, which is something morality would advise against. Morality is demanding, but it can't be demanding to an extent that comes out wasteful of intrinsic value in the end. Well, that's my working hypothesis at least.