I had not heard of “Effective Altruism” or EA until the collapse of Sam Bankman-Fried’s crypto empire. He was a big EA guy, and so is My Guy Elon Musk. The point of EA is to make charitable giving effective.
EAs believe rigorous cost-benefit analyses should determine which causes and organizations are capable of using resources most effectively. While it may feel good to donate to a local soup kitchen or an animal shelter, EAs maintain that these charities don’t have nearly as much impact on human well-being as, say, a foundation which provides malaria-resistant bed nets in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Author Matt Johnson continues with “How Effective Altruism Lost Its Way.”
While EA isn’t exclusively utilitarian, the greatest good for the greatest number is a rough approximation of the basic principle that many in the movement endorse. The utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer is one of the intellectual godfathers of EA, as his emphasis on applied ethics and an impartial sense of moral responsibility aligns with EA’s focus on objectively maximizing the good that can be done in the world.
See, I don’t go with that. I think that altruism is about helping someone near to you, just because
altruism is the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others.
Because I think that altruism is the women of the neighborhood looking out for the widows and the abandoned women. It’s not “disinterested” or “selfless.” It’s just doing the right thing.
Dickens had Effective Altruism nailed 170 years ago with Mrs. Jellyby in Bleak House. She was obsessed with helping the natives in Borrioboola-Gha, but utterly neglected her husband and children. In other words, I believe that when you make your relief of the poor into an actual program, it’s not altruistic any more. It’s organized, purposeful, part of the plan. And that isn’t altruism.
Also, I don’t think that altruism is analyzing the data and writing a check. I’d say it is looking out for other people and being there when they need a hand.
But I certainly think that billionaires — and everybody else — should analyze their charitable giving and make sure that it goes to places that are properly organized and making things better rather than Making Things Worse.
But when I read about the plans and the philosophy of the organizers of Effective Altruism it seems hauntingly like the heady 19th century days when advanced minds were teasing out the details of socialism. Only this time let’s call it Socialism 2.0.