"Effective Altruism" is a moral philosophy that was arguably popularized by William Macaskill's book "Doing Good Better." Doing Good Better contends that it is not solely important that one gives, it is important where one gives, and that there are more and less effective ways of accomplishing that.
Arguments like Macaskill's brought about the organization Givewell, which commits itself to analyzing charities and determining which ones are the most effective at accomplishing human-welfare-enhancing objectives per dollar of cost. This is in contrast with the more typical approach by say, a Charity Navigator, which looks more narrowly at the percentage of a dollar that goes toward the mission itself as opposed to advertising or administration costs. Under Givewell's philosophy, a lower-yielding charity would be morally better than a higher-yielding one with less efficacy. Charity Navigator could potentially be used to argue the opposite. Givewell has named the Against Malaria Foundation (AMF) to be the most effective charity in the world at averting human deaths, estimating that $3.3K in the hands of AMF is sufficient to avert one human death from malaria.
Another central pillar of Macaskill's philosophy is the notion of "earn to give," where he believes it is more effective to work a high-earning job in a Western country and donate a portion of the proceeds to highly efficacious charities than it is to directly work for those charities. To make this more concrete, he would advise that if one were able, that they work in PE earning $500K per year and donating a portion of that to effective charities rather than join Oxfam or the Gates Foundation. This philosophy is particularly pertinent to this forum, which disproportionately features people working in these higher earning industries or at least aspiring to work in them.
Of course, there is also the argument that it's morally best to give every dollar that you have to someone in need until you are at the level of survival, but I'm not particularly interested in that here (it's fine to discuss if you must).
Parting questions:
1) Is it moral to donate to causes in the United States or other industrialized Western countries in the face of extreme poverty elsewhere that can be cheaply fixed?
2) Is earn to give morally justified as a way of living? For example, Macaskill facetiously posits that if you had the choice to save a child or a Picasso painting from a burning house, that it would be morally best to save the painting, sell it, and donate the proceeds to save 1 + N children (this ignores the ability to fundraise the money from the story of saving the child and donating the proceeds).
As always, keenly interested in your thoughts.
Effective Altruism definitely strikes a cord for me and likely will for others on this forum. We discussed the idea in limited fashion in a Global Justice summer course I took years ago. We also discussed the idea of giving every dollar of disposable income away until we have ended major global poverty, disease, inequality, etc., mostly elucidated by philosophers like Toby Ord and Peter Singer and this will not be discussed as part of the response below. Their work creates for an interesting discussion nonetheless. I’ve also never read Doing Good Better or Moral Uncertainty, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
To give some background on me, I’ve actually participated in global poverty reduction in an engineering capacity and local volunteering for veterans and have developed the perspective that creating effective change internationally without deep knowledge of the issue you are trying to fix is extremely challenging. Building a simple bridge with Engineers without Borders, for example, suddenly does not seem so simple when you are actually on the ground, working with the people you are trying to help. I’ll never forget leaving Kenya, feeling I had actually made the lives of the people I was trying to help more difficult in giving them something.
Sometimes, things that can be done cheaply for large benefit cannot be done easily. These things should truly be left to professionals who understand the social, political, and economic minutiae of the people receiving the help. Bluntly, I think that those who are truly of help are few and far between and doing their work little compensation. I think this has made it difficult for truly value-accretive projects to be completed effectively.
I think giving away even a small part my disposable income can do a world of difference for those wanting to institute global change, and honestly will probably do more than I myself can do myself by going there.
Now, as to the morality of donating money internationally compared to say helping out people in the United States is almost like saying we should not have soup kitchens for the poor in cities because we need to take care of drug addicts first. Then, only when the drug addicts are clear can we then help out the poor non-drug-addicts using soup kitchens.
Why can’t we donate abroad and within Western countries? We should be able to help people in Western Countries and people abroad, I think.. I’m curious if this is a proper interpretation or if I’m missing something here, since I believe donating to people in any kind of true need is at least somewhat justified. Let me know if I’m missing something here.
There’s also a question of how much an international donation will impact your life or the lives of those important to you, and whether or not this should be taken into consideration. It’s a questions of as to whether donating internationally really matters if the result will never affect you, and particularly, whether or not this is a rational decision. See “Think Before You Give: Charity Should be More Rational and Less Emotional” about the rationality of donations, and “Does Charity Begin at Home? National Identity and Donating to Domestic vs. International Charities” about international giving (both generally support Effective Altruism, but bring to light some shortfalls as well). I will not be discussing this in this response however.
Macaskill posits an interesting dilemma in which a rational person would almost certainly make an irrational decision based on the framework created by Effective Altruism. Everyone would save the child instead of the painting regardless of how much more “morally right” saving the painting would be in any case. I think this does make sense to consider this, as this highlights a difficult point in accepting Effective Altruism as a guiding philosophy.
Personally, I think it absolutely makes sense to donate money where it will be effectively used and put to the benefit of those around. However, I think I stop short of saying that I absolutely should not support charities around me when I can help. I do look into the effectiveness of charities I donate to and participate with, but still make sure I feel that what I am doing is good for those around me.
To posit an additional question: Would you donate money if it didn’t make you feel any different? In other words, you would feel absolutely no better about your donation after donating or see any real change in the organization you donate to.
As much as I want to say I would still donate in that case, I really don’t know if I would. I think the “feeling” aspect of donation is a large piece of what powers my desire to give. I’m very curious what others think about this as well.
The reason I wanted to avoid the "everydollarism" is not because I don't think about it frequently (I do), it's because it breeds a lot of hostility very fast and I find it makes for uninteresting and more importantly, demotivating conversations.
I agree with you that it is extremely challenging, which is why I trust certain organizations that have used data to prove they are as competent as they are. It's difficult knowing when you're actually improving a person's life.
We can't be so narrowminded as to say "we'll focus on one charitable cause at a time, you know, the one that is more impactful for less money than anything." If you want to take care of soup kitchens, go for it. Many resources are already allocated to many causes. My goal is that people think carefully about allocating marginal or additional resources to particularly impactful locations.
I think helping people in the West and beyond are both fine objectives. I think a lot of times, though, that one can be finer than the other, and that it would pay for us to think about that finest thing. It would be morally better to do so.
I briefly described why I disagreed with the Picasso piece because I reason this. You could save the child, promote the story that you saved the child, raise money commensurate to the value of the painting and donate it all to charity. Then bingo, the child lives and the same amount of money goes to charity. It's somewhat workable.
I would donate money even if I felt no different. It would not be necessary for me to witness anything so long as I had a reasonable assurance that good had been done. I can plant trees in whose shade I'll never sit. Cheers
I always donate anonymously and am not actively involved in charities I support. I don't really feel any better after donating, but helping those who can't adequately support themselves is the right thing to do. I could've bought a brand new Ducati with my YTD giving, and that would provide way more personal enjoyment than supporting charities - so for me supporting charities is for logical reasons (and moral - we should help others who have little to no resources), not emotional.
Good on you. I am waiting a few more years before I start my large giving, I already Give in small amounts. I already have a few charities that do great work in my home city that I want to help. I just feel like I need to setup a solid foundation prior to donating.
I recently read Doing Good Better. Some interesting concepts. However, I couldn't help feeling that a bunch of people would read it and then just say "oh yeah I'll just work to earn and then give a chunk," and then never actually do. I'd roll my eyes if anyone told me they didn't volunteer or chose not to go work in Africa because they were going to give some of their marketing, account, HR, etc. salary to charity.
For those who truly deeply care, I'd expect plenty of volunteering as well as giving a double digit percentage of income to charity. The 1-2 people the book highlighted as earning to give were pretty laughable.
I think you can solve the conundrum by realizing that two things can simultaneously be true:
1) The sort of person who would say "I'll just work to earn and give" is generally unmotivated to help others and is just trying to weasel out of volunteering.
2) For those who can earn high salaries, their efforts are likely better spent earning and giving those dollars to charities with maximal leverage of resources than actually working for those organizations.
From that, am I going to frown on someone who spends a few hours working a soup kitchen? Of course not. Do I also believe that work to give is also more morally justified than many, if not most forms of time investment. Yes.
I haven't read the book, so I can't opine on the author's examples.
TLDR; Your statement does not undermine the moral position of "earn to give." Rather, it calls into question the ability of people to live up to the magnanimity of "earn to give," and in that respect, I agree.
I agree with what you wrote. Although if someone is earning $200K as a finance employee at a F500 and is even giving 10% of his/her income, I think his/her impact on a charity would be worth more than $20K if he/she has any competence at all. Different story if you're talking about someone earning a million per year who might donate 10-20% plus, depending on the skill set.
It’s an interesting theory that you posit, but ultimately I think humans are animalistic at nature and really only concerned with helping their friends and family. Humans can show compassion and loyalty, but the vast majority stop once we get beyond friends and close family.
You mention earn your give, that it would be more effective to get a high earning job and donate proceeds to charity as opposed to spending your time working directly with charities. I’ve never heard of that before and I have also heard that someone actually being there and volunteering actually has more of an impact that a money donation.
I would think most people on the forum, once they are established in their career, pay at around the 40% tax rate like me.
If that’s the case, we are already donating a ton of money in a sense. Our taxes pay for social services in America and foreign aid all over the world. Don’t you think employed people who are hammered at the top tax bracket are already “donating” both domestically and internationally?
How animalistic humans are and how much they prioritize the welfare of their families over other people is not my immediate concern, although it's well noted. This is a moral argument of how people "normatively" "ought to act." Your statement is a "positive" one that says how people "actually or in practice act." Motivation to do this task is not my concern; whether it ought to be done is.
Certain people on this forum could surely give six-figures in a year to AMF if they so willed. That amount would be estimated to spare 30 human lives, with most being young children with many years ahead. There are few professions, charitable or otherwise, that accomplish this, and you're accomplishing this while also making an enormous living for yourself. I see no credible reason why volunteering would be more impactful in such an instance.
As far as foreign aid goes, of course that's part of the splash that a person makes in the pond of generosity, but that has no bearing on whether it is right or wrong to give more, to give that next marginal dollar. That is my concern. Thanks for your comment.
I disagree with the second point that throwing money at charities is better than working for those charities. Yes, charities need money but they also need professionals, people who can treat malaria or distribute food across shitty African infrastructures. You can fund scientific research, but you can’t get anything done without scientists.
That's why money is fungible, which means it can be exchanged for other things. If I get enough money over to the charity, then they can fulfill their missions. Not everyone has the talents to make a lot of money. Not everyone has the talents to perform scientific research on malaria. That said, with enough money, you can hire multiple, multiple people to work on the mission. That's what I (and effective altruism) are saying.
Honestly I feel like charity is a way for rich people to feel good about themselves, basically buying their ''good person'' badge, because it's a lot easier to sleep at night if you are wealthy, you feel you deserve it, not only because of your hard work but because you are a moral force of good.
Under that reasoning, all of charity regardless of the alleged beneficiary is simply a farce. If you really want to make the world a better place, you should probably invest your time, instead of your money over it. Direct exposure to success or failure of your attempts to solve problems is a much harsher environment. Of course, most charitables will never do it. Most of them would likely make the situation worse anyway.
I recall my experience with Rotary was basically a bunch of people coming from wealthy families doing 3 weeks vacations in Kenya because ''they built a hospital''. Liberals tend to be particularly disgusting because most of their charity is often based on their racist preferences, so if anything, it earns them a badge of ''piece of shit''.
See reply below. Sorry
Honestly I feel like "feelING like charity is a way for rich people to feel good about themselves" is a way for rich people to feel good about themselves, because if you demotivate yourself that charity can have an impact, then you don't feel so bad about keeping money for yourself anyway.
If you try to give money, people tell you to give your time instead. If you try to give your time, they'll call you an interloper and tell you to part with your money. So begins the cycle. If existing charities are putting out evidence-based results of real good, why not give them money? They can operate without you, why do they need your time? I agree that many charitable people make the situation worse by being an interloper; that's why they need to cut checks to evidence-based organizations that are doing good in the world.
Rotarians going to Kenya. Mission trips to Nicaragua. Medical stints in Haiti. These short-term "charitable hookups" are not the model here. The model is to empower organizations that have already proven their ability to do good by providing them with the resources to extend their reach. To your final point, I think the "soft bigotry of low expectations" is definitely at play. Having a "savior complex" or a colonial attitude about things isn't useful. I don't think distributing mosquito nets is either of these bad things; I think it's a decent thing to do. Cheers
The difference between investing time and money in charity is that once people ask you to invest money, after you invested time, you can present results. These are your results and not the results of someone you paid for. It's a much more defensible position. And nobody says those are mutually exclusive.
I agree with the last part though and it seems to be the normal mindset when approaching other cultures: the fundamental idea that they'd be better off if they shared our own lifestyle and values, where the underlying reasoning is that our values are better than their because we think of them as universal, despite all the talk about tolerance. See the democracy in Afghanistan experiment. There's a fundamental contraddiction with this: you want universal values, then they'll be as watered down as possible to be universally accepted. What liberals do is simply to demand the universal application of their values, where tolerance is what they tolerate, with very different standards of applications. It won't work. Let people sort out their own problems and figure out their own ways.
Let's say you're really mad, and there's someone you want dead. So you look in the Yellow Pages and search for "hitman." You get Assassins Inc. on the phone and say, "I'll give you $10K to wipe this sucker off the face of this planet." They get the job done. You never pulled the trigger, and these are "the results of someone you paid for." The proximate cause of this death, though, is that you paid them. You get caught and charged with murder. Into the slammer...
Before you fix anybody's problem, you must first presume that a problem exists. Some of the things people assume are problems are not actually problems. You can't force democracy on a country that doesn't want it, and most of the people don't even really know what democracy means. Their form of government is listening to local leaders, clergy, and they've been getting the job done just fine (from their point of view). And you're going to go in dictate exactly what form of their government they're going to have because... freedom. How internally inconsistent is that? People can show similar levels of imperiousness at the charitable level too. Cheers
Nice Job
Every dollar I have earned goes to my family. Sorry sub-saharans, maybe try inventing democracy for once and not for a perpetuity of warlords who invest in 1st world countries and not into their own economy.
Or would it be humane if the U.S. colonized Africa and increased their standard of living?
Time to bump this sus thread
Est ducimus aut asperiores occaecati expedita. Voluptas a vero sequi impedit voluptatem in ut. Necessitatibus et quidem magni fugit delectus harum quasi. Aut cum sunt ipsa.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Iusto quaerat dicta asperiores aspernatur odit consequuntur sapiente. Commodi harum corrupti commodi perferendis enim et mollitia. Illum totam praesentium quia ut eligendi ut provident. Illum minus est aut voluptas recusandae placeat.
Porro sit recusandae nihil consequatur saepe voluptates. Ea nesciunt ea in minus qui temporibus. Odit delectus enim rerum occaecati nemo occaecati.
Et consequatur a dicta maiores nostrum a eligendi. Ea quae ut alias architecto dignissimos voluptatum. Earum voluptatibus dolor velit ab odit aut odit aperiam. Ab sit ut possimus ut ea sit. Incidunt reiciendis sunt dolorum hic totam voluptatem maiores. Molestiae dolores ut ut ut iusto quo.
Incidunt dolorem culpa est similique aperiam adipisci. Eum atque et vel optio. Eaque est voluptas nesciunt deleniti eaque eum reiciendis quia.