I think most people's problem with "effective altruism" is rather that some of its more prominent adherents end up defining "helping humanity" in very weird and rather counter-intuitive ways. Like that whole argument that we basically should care more about future humans than present ones because there's a lot more future ones.
I agree that's most people's problem, but it's now mine. I've tried to think about effective altruism from first principals. For me, I can rationally understand effective altruism and why it's attractive. I even believe people that follow it (and actually do good) may in some sense be "better" people than me. But it none the less rubs me the wrong way and I can't follow it, so I've tried to understand why.
