Other attributes
Effective altruism is an intellectual and charitable movement based, in part, on the Utilitarian philosophical theories of Peter Singer that were proposed by Oxford University philosophers William MacAskill and Toby Ord around 2011. The movement uses evidence and rational arguments to find the most effective charitable movements and organizations and find ways to help the most people with the least amount of money.
Effective altruism is based on the question, How can one be more effective in the pursuit of doing good? Common phrasing of this question include, How can the most good be done with given resources? How can the impact of donations be maximized? and How can one "do good" better? These questions are at the heart of what formed the thinking behind effective altruism, including working to push the limited resources of an individual to help make the world a better place and increasing the effectiveness of those resources to do the most good possible.
This means effective altruists work to research the impact of a given charity to ensure that the money donated to charity can help the most amount of people possible. For example, when given the same resources, some charities will help 100 to 1,000 times as many people as others with the same resources. And this is how effective altruists try to tackle the world's biggest problems. Those inspired by or following effective altruism have worked on various projects, ranging from the distribution of malaria nets, to academic research on the future of AI, to campaigning for policies to prevent the next pandemic. Further, the need for research to maximize the good achievable has led to effective altruist funding and starting academic research groups to protect the future of humanity.
Effective altruism as a movement has come to prominence for its popularity among the extremely wealthy, especially among the Silicon Valley tech elite, and has gained popular public attention following the arrest and sentencing of Sam Bankman-Fried, founder of FTX and Alameda Research, who was a public and popular proponent of effective altruism, committing a reported USD$160 million to charities popular with effective altruists. The wider effective altruist community includes people all over the world, with a range of backgrounds and views, united by working to take action based on the above-noted questions and concerns. Generally, the community of effective altruists works to donate money to effective charities, works on effective global health and development projects, researches interventions and their effectiveness, advocates for impactful policies, and supports and builds effective altruism organizations.
Unfortunately, for effective altruists, their high-profile members have also been a cause of concern, as the high profile of those figures has led to criticism from the general population. Further, the tying of effective altruism to figures such as Sam Bankman-Fried as those figures go through criminal trials paints the movement with a dark brush. That has led to others stepping back from associating themselves with the movement. At the same time, it has also spurred greater interest in understanding what is at the heart of the effective altruism movement.
The movement was partially inspired by the philosopher Peter Singer, who argued for an obligation for those capable of helping people in extreme poverty. Singer began writing in the 1970s, but it was not until 2011 when William MacAskill and Toby Ord cofounded the effective altruism movement through their personal moral and ethical theories, which were inspired by Singer's arguments. Toby Ord is an Australian philosopher who is a senior research fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute, the founder of Giving What We Can, and a cofounder of the Centre for Effective Altruism, all of which are effective altruism organizations. Toby Ord came to effective altruism through his work on the ethics of global health and global poverty and has integrated his work on the threats of human extinction into the effective altruism movement.
Whereas, for William MacAskill, the seed of efffective altruism came from one of Singer's essays and his struggle with the concepts, specifically around giving as much as possible to ease the suffering of others. Since then, MacAskill has gone on to be a cofounder of 80,000 Hours, the Centre for Effective Altruism, and Giving What We Can. He is the author of Doing Good Better, his treatise on effective altruism. MacAskill has also done work to recruit others to the effective altruism movement.
The beginning of the movement is largely pinned to 2011 and the founding of The Centre for Effective Altruism by a group of Oxford philosophers, which included Toby Ord and William MacAskill, who have become prominent figures of the movement, giving to the cause the founding of other effective altruist organizations between the two of them, their work on various books and treatises explaining effective altruism, and their work in recruiting the uber-rich and future uber-rich.
Effective altruism is defined largely by the principles that underpin its attempts to help others. These principles are not absolutes and can be subjected to revision, but they are believed by those following effective altruism to be undervalued by society at large and also important in their charitable efforts. These principles are intended to help effective altruists find better ways to help others through their donations. Many proponents of effective altruism compare their approach and its underlying principles to the scientific method, in that effective altruists utilize evidence and reason in search of the best ways of doing good similar to the scientific method's use of evidence and reason in search of truth. And both the scientific method and effective altruism are based on simple ideas that lead to radical effects.
Prioritization is a principle of ensuring the scale of outcomes of charitable action is as large as possible. This is to work around an individual's intuition, where doing good does not necessarily take into account the number of people affected, and find ways to do good while achieving dramatically more than others. This includes using numbers, data, and research to roughly weigh how much different actions help and to find the best ways to help, to make the biggest difference.
When doing good, it is natural and reasonable for an individual to have special concern for their family, friends, community, or nation. Effective altruists, in trying to do as much good as possible, aim to give everyone's interests equal weight regardless of where and when they live. This generates a focus on helping the most neglected and in-need groups and on those who have the least power to protect their own interests.
Rather than starting with a commitment to a given cause, community, or approach, effective altruists consider all the ways to help and seek the best of those ways. This includes serious time and reflection into one's beliefs while being open and curious for new evidence and arguments and being prepared to change their views radically in light of that evidence or argument, all towards the aim of doing the most good.
It is often possible to achieve more when working together rather than alone. To work together requires honesty, integrity, and compassion, and from this, effective altruism can help its members be good citizens while working for an ambitiously better world rather than supporting "ends justify the means" reasoning.
Part of effective altruism is the need for the individual to reach their own conclusion to the question, What causes do the most good? While the effective altruist organizations help to answer this question, especially for those effective altruists who have less time to ponder and research this question, there remains a need for an individual to choose the cause. In order to decide which issue to focus on or fund, effective altruism offers a framework of three questions:
- How big is the problem?
- How much funding is currently devoted to addressing it?
- Are there any known solutions or systems that can or do make a difference?
The consideration of these questions and how to do the best good for the most people, especially for those problems that have the least amount of funding dedicated to them, have led to the schism of effective altruists into two ideological camps: neartermists and longtermists. As the unwieldy portmanteaus suggest, "neartermists" tend to focus on problems that affect people currently and the solutions that can solve those problems in the near term. While "longtermists" focus on problems they suggest will affect people of the future—with "future" termed on varying time horizons, stretching from generations to centuries to millennia—and focus on the problems that will affect the people living then.
As noted above, neartermists focus on the problems facing people alive today. These effective altruists tend to see problems related to extreme poverty as the most significant issues facing people today and the most solvable issues facing people. They are likely to support charities such as those that help to protect children from malaria, deliver essential vitamin A supplements, or cure preventable blindness. Another priority for neartermists is improving the conditions of livestock and reducing the number of animals that suffer in factory-farming operations. Neartermists can be indistinguishable from others who give charitable donations, other than they employ the principles and values of effective altruists.
Longtermists, on the other hand, emphasize the problems people of the future may face rather than those that face individuals today. To reach the conclusion that this is a moral place for donations, effective altruists follow their principles: they look at causes that are underfunded and affect the most people who have the least amount of advocacy on their behalf. Following this logic, and when considering human history may have a very long arc, then advocating on behalf of the trillions of future humans (compared to the meager billions of current humans) who have yet to be conceived and who have no voice in current society, no vote for world leaders, no union, and no lobby becomes important. And what could be more neglected, in terms of charity and advocacy, than the needs of those future humans.
Generally, longtermists focus on reducing problems that are anticipated to face future humans, including the probability of artificial intelligence killing everyone on Earth, nuclear war, preventing future pandemics, climate change, and other existential risks. The most active efforts of effective altruists in this regard are on AI research and reducing or eliminating the risk many AI researchers present that human-level AI could be imminent and make much of humanity redundant, if not completely unnecessary. Other major longtermist focuses are reducing or eliminating the risk of a nuclear holocaust and preventing the next pandemic (a focus longtermists had before the COVID-19 pandemic).
Longtermists have been criticized by many outside of the effective altruist movement as deeply wrong-headed and even offensive, specifically because the focus is on a largely hypothetical, regardless of how probably, scenario to the detriment of funding and finding solutions to current concerns, such as climate change. Especially if the focus is on helping future humans and the long term of human existence, climate change presents a greater and more present danger than AI potentialities. Let alone, these critics note, that these problems ignore the desperate poverty which continues to exist globally.
More vociferous critics suggest longtermism is a con on the part of its proponents in order to do interesting research rather than working on the pressing present problems. More temperate critics see longtermism as alienating effective altruism and its proponents from the day-to-day practice of others. Further, these critics note that for many potential future problems, the approach to solving these problems (often funding experiments to find a bunch of approaches to solve them in hopes one works) does not necessarily work when there is huge "sign uncertainty" or when an intervention has a reasonable chance of solving a problem and making a problem worse.
In response to these concerns, many longtermists point to the lack of thought or research into potential future problems, especially avoidable problems. For example, even ten years ago, few thought artificial intelligence would threaten humans, and the idea of super-intelligent AI seemed ridiculous to many. However, the pace of AI has since become rapid (too rapid to ignore), and even dumb AI systems threaten humanity in limited ways, and yet longtermists saw this potential and were funding research into AI safety. Although, others have noted, despite the money donated by longtermists into a solution or strategy to address AI safety, there remain no known or obvious strategy suggested by these groups.
Of note, for these critics, OpenAI began in part as an effective altruist-funded project as it sought to solve the future problems of AI and the safety of humanity, and yet, due in part to the "sign uncertainty" has instead emerged as one of the world's leading AI research lab. Therefore, the funding to solve the problems posed by AI, which sought to create an environment in which people could effectively do technical research on AI safety, accelerated the pace of progress toward advanced AI in a way that amplifies the very danger it sought to avoid.
One of the principles of effective altruism is "earning to give." It is often considered how a person can do the most good with their career: either direct their work to a specifically effective altruist-aligned organization or seek a high-paying career and donate a significant portion of their earnings to an effective altruist organization. The latter strategy, known as "earning to give," has been considered by some to be a core tenet of effective altruism with its roots in Singer's Utilitarianism, while others consider it nothing more than a quirk of the movement and many of its proponents.
In 2013, part founder of effective altruism William MacAskill opined that in his research for an ethical career choice, he found that it was better to earn a lot of money and donate a large chunk of that money to the most cost-effective charities. MacAskill has since clarified that he does not advocate "earning to give" as the best framework for effective altruism, but it is just one way a person can pursue making the world a better place. Further, the approach has been moderated into different versions, known selectively as "saving to give," in which an individual can choose to save or invest their earnings for later disbursement rather than donate them immediately, to better invest in effective altruism, even waiting until the end of the individual's career before investing; or, in some versions, waiting as long as possible, stretching from generations to centuries or millennia before donating to an effective altruist organization.
Earning to give as a concept has received some criticism. One such criticism looks at the concept that making as much money in a potentially unethical career to then ethically donate is murky at best. Further, for an individual who is capable of earning an above-average salary (based on their work habits, being a self-starter, and ability to execute; all habits that anticipate a high-salary earner) to put their efforts into a humanitarian organization would offer a greater impact from their labor than their money. Those highly skilled, highly motivated workers could even create the efficiencies in humanitarian work that effective altruists search for, while only funding those humanitarian efforts and organizations leaves them at risk of being staffed by low-effort, low-skill workers, reducing the efficiency. This criticism has been taken to heart by some effective altruists, seeing some leave their high-paying jobs in order to work for charities and create the efficiencies they seek.
The other criticism of "earning to give" tends to be far simpler, as it asks the question of whether the harm done by the activity to earn the money can be outweighed by the dollar amount donated. This is a sort of reformulation of Do the ends justify the means? With the answer offered by effective altruists seemingly being that so long as they are net-positive, then yes. It is not considered, empirically, to be an ideal framework for creating the structural changes required for massive increases in quality of life that effective altruists seek to create.
As noted above, there are various criticisms, valid and invalid, of effective altruism and its proponents. These criticisms are over:
- utilitarian criticisms (or those of effective altruism as a pseudo-utilitarian thought),
- the stated priorities of effective altruism (especially the longtermism version of effective altruism)
- longtermism itself, and
- the ability for effective altruism to achieve its aims.
Effective altruism began, in large part, as a philosophical movement in regard to charity. It was based, or inspired, by the utilitarian moral philosophy of Peter Singer, particularly regarding his 1972 paper "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," which William MacAskill has made reference to in regard to his formulation of some of the grounding beliefs of effective altruism. Due to its utilitarian origins, many of the traditional concerns and criticisms of utilitarianism have been lobbed at effective altruism, such as those by John Gray, who, in his 2015 review of Peter Singer, noted that regardless of whether effective altruists find fulfillment in the way they live, they are bound to view their lives not as ends in themselves but only as means to the greatest good.
Further, Gray noted that if people give priority to the needs of their own children, or the well-being of a loved one suffering from a degenerative disorder, over the needs of those living in poverty or a dog or chimpanzee, they are, according to effective altruism, backsliding from an ideal of universal benevolence. But, Gray contends, it should be noted that instead of backsliding, they are really honoring the ethical understandings that shape any individual's lives. Another, similar criticism, offered by Amia Srinivasan, reiterated the concern about alienating people from their own integrity; she noted that what is required by effective altruism is impersonal, ruthless decision-making where the heart is firmly reined in by the head, which runs contrary to an individual's everyday sense of an ethical life. And notions such as responsibility, kindness, dignity, and moral sensitivity have to be reimagined if they are to survive the scrutiny of the universal gaze.
Jeff McMahan, in his "Philosophical Critiques of Effective Altruism," rejects the portrayal of effective altruism as reliant on utilitarianism. He notes that, in his formulation, utilitarianism was not a necessary feature of effective altruism; therefore, it is not enough to refute the claims of effective altruism with objections to utilitarianism—with the common objectives being some formulation of Bernard Williams' objectives to utilitarianism. Rather, McMahan suggests critics needed to refute the more specific arguments presented by the thinkers of effective altruism.
This has led to the question of whether effective altruism is inherently utilitarian, thereby ensuring those critics have ground to criticize. Or it is not; in which case, there needs to be a unique critique of effective altruism, let alone rendering those above criticisms to be done in, perhaps, bad faith. However, "inherently" means that it is necessary, that without the tenets of utilitarianism, effective altruism cannot exist. To make that determination, those critics have looked at the tenets of utilitarianism (consequentialism, hedonism, and impartiality) compared to the tenets of effective altruism as laid out by McMahan. These include maximizing the good, science-alignment, welfarism (where goodness is the improvement of the welfare of individuals), and impartiality. Science alignment specifies the commitment to use science as a tool to determine effective charities, which can be used impartially to direct wealth that increases human welfare, where impartiality requires each person's welfare is valued equally. Which is intended to encourage an individual to concern themselves with suffering outside their personal purview.
While using different terms, utilitarianism also emphasizes the best effect of actions being a morally correct action (through consequentialism), with an emphasis on hedonism (where an act is morally good if it produces the highest level of pleasure for the least amount of suffering) for the greatest amount of people, with an emphasis in impartiality (where each individual's suffering is considered equally). Obviously, both effective altruism and utilitarianism have much in common. McMahan and MacAskill have argued that, despite the commonality, the key difference lies in that effective altruism does not claim one must always sacrifice one's own interest if it can benefit others to a greater extent and makes no claims about the obligations of benevolence.
If effective altruism does have hard limits on what they are willing to do to produce the good (for example, is it morally good to murder one healthy person to save five people who could use their healthy organs), the question becomes, Does placing a threshold on what one is willing to do in order to maximize human welfare show that effective is not inherently utilitarian? It has been argued that while these claims draw a line between the two, it is not enough to undermine the obvious shared philosophical commitments. Rather, the appeal to "do good" is not enough to convince people to donate as much as 50 percent of their income, but it requires a certain philosophical underpinning. Given that utilitarianism and effective altruism are distinct moral theories, the fact remains they share a number of central features and, therefore, central criticisms, which cannot be dismissed out of hand and suggest, in this way, problematic structural features similar to those found in utilitarianism.
Effective altruism has also largely been criticized for being an elevation of the mindset of the "benevolent capitalist," which emphasizes individual agency within capitalism over more foundational critiques of the systems, which have created the inequalities effective altruism attempts to address. The earn-to-give philosophy raises the question of why wealthy individuals should be given the decision of where funds should go, especially if the wealth they generate is extracted from employees' labor or the public, as is the case in some industries.
This criticism goes in hand with a larger criticism of a capitalist system, which relies on charity to function, such that wealth is generated at the expense of others and raises the question of whether more equitable pay in an organization with an effective altruist at its head might not lead to a greater amount and variety of charity with a potentially greater impact.
Perhaps the most stinging part of this criticism (as some may quibble over the need to make any foundational changes to an economic system, which benefits them) comes over the use of data. Effective altruists suggest they follow the impartial data in a science-like approach to do the most effective good for the most people, and data shows that individuals lower in the income pyramid tend to donate more of their income and give charitably on a more regular basis. Further, many of these charitable givings tend to be more informal avenues, such as crowdfunding, mutual aid, or giving circles, all at a community level, and these donations have been shown to have a greater individual impact than mass charitable donations on a global level.
The latter part of that criticism is also important. Assessing the impact of charitable donations can be difficult. And ensuring the assessment comes from diverse sources can be incredibly important, as relying on fewer sources or narrow definitions of success leads to biased assessments and rewards limited value systems over other worldviews. This can include penalizing nonprofits and charitable organizations working on longer-term or more complex strategies than what can be translated into the math of effective altruism. A more concrete example of this problem is the top effective altruist charity GiveWell's deworming projects (distributing drugs for parasitic infections), which used a 2004 study to assess their impact, except the study in question has since been debunked as others have been unable to replicate the results. Despite the uncertainty, GiveWell directed more than $12 million to deworming charities in 2022.
A further criticism concerns where effective altruists direct their earnings and who benefits. Similar to other types of charitable giving, effective altruists do not have set rules for what constitutes "philanthropy," and charitable organizations benefit from a tax code that incentivizes the wealthy to establish and control their own charitable endeavors at the expense of public tax revenues, local governance, and public accountability.
Further, the question of what it means to do the "most good" they can, although attempted to be explained as an attempt to empirically find the most efficient manner of giving, the lack of defining good leaves a lot of room. The lack of specification also cuts the other way, in that lacking a proper definition for what it means to fail at doing good means an individual does not necessarily know when they are doing good and when they are merely doing. The lack of definitions can also complicate what it means to do good, as the conclusions reached by a group or individual giver can be contrary to other beliefs held by effective altruists, and their assumptions, if unexamined, will influence their giving as well.
A good example of this lack of definition comes in a discussion of the basic concept of longtermism. Longtermism's underlying logic sees history as a forward march toward inevitable progress. In that way, MacAskill references various case studies of the life-improving impact of technological and moral development (such as the abolishment of slavery, the Industrial Revolution, and the women's rights movement), and MacAskill argues it is important to continue humanity's arc of progress before the "wrong values" are established. However, when asked what the "right" values are, MacAskill suggests the focus should be on more abstract or general moral principles to ensure that moral changes are relevant and positive in the future.
The lack of definition and the ambiguity may appeal to some. But when it comes to deciding an issue, especially for longertermists, to give funding to or spend research time on, it can create difficulties. For example, what is a greater threat to future humans: climate change or AI-human replacement? Longtermists and effective altruism does not offer a concrete answer, but their funding tends to lead towards the latter problem, leading to criticism from advocates concerned about where unchecked climate change could lead.
