“Effective Altruism”

I recently applied to a job at a media company that was pitching a new vertical on the concept of “effective altruism.” The general idea, most notably pitched by academic William MacAskill in his book Doing Good Better, is to raise the ratio of charitable dollars spent to individuals affected. In theory, effective altruists want to use quantitative analysis, accounting, and research to develop the most efficient philanthropic projects. It’s a utilitarian philosophy, meaning that subscribers would reject charitable efforts that do not do the most good (in a cost-benefit sense). MacAskill cites the Deworm the World Initiative, which provides low-cost deworming treatment to schoolchildren in developing nations on the basis of (limited) research that found deworming, not investment in textbooks and supplies, resulted in the highest school attendance. The logic of the practice would dictate that instead of donating to your local humane society or food bank, you’d donate only to the most cost-effective causes, those where money not only buys the most, but “counts” the most (this is why effective altruists often avoid large NGOs or endowment funds).

With the disclaimer that effective altruism undoubtedly produces benefits, the logic behind it often produces counter-intuitive and downright distasteful effects, particularly to those left of the political center. (This is without even addressing the question of whether such reliance on cost-benefit analysis might lead to bias towards easily quantifiable giving). MacAskill takes his interpretation of “bang for the buck” to the extreme, even using his non-profit 80,000 Hours to encourage his followers to pursue high-earning careers (banking, hedge-fund managing, etc.) in order to donate excess earnings to effective charities. 80,000 hours’ vision is admittedly not the average effective altruist’s preferred vehicle for charity, but the underlying through-line between MacAskill’s philanthropic CEO and Deworm the World is the same. Take another initiative that effective altruists hold up as exemplary: the Against Malaria Foundation, which distributes insecticide-treated nets to communities in sub-Saharan Africa. The Foundation clearly saves lives and alleviates some suffering. But can it be really said to be “doing good better”? Insecticide-treated nets do nothing to help develop sustainable medical infrastructure in the regions where they are distributed; neither will they alleviate poverty or provide the nutrition that allows individuals to cope with illness.

Effective altruism is at heart a profoundly conservative movement, one that relies on institutions as they are. Neo-liberal to the core, effective altruists believe in “doing good”, but fail to engage with substantive discussions of what “the good” might actually be. If we want to encourage children in developing countries to pursue education, shouldn’t we invest in education — from books, to teachers, to political systems — as messy and difficult to quantify as that project might be? Instead of asking whether we’re spending our money in the most “efficient” or “effective” way possible, regardless of our personal connections to causes or communities, what if we focused on our communities themselves? Instead of working to determine which traumas are “worth” our time and energy, what if we decided to heal the people closest to us? Effective altruists believe that the very institutions that drive suffering on a global scale can fix the problems they created. If only we could craft the perfect non-profit, the legacies of imperialism would finally be erased, concentrated capital could be persuaded to trickle down, and societies around the world would be free and fair. Daring to re-imagine the status quo isn’t cost-effective. But it’s the only way to create real change.

For further reading see:

MacAskill, William. Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Make a Difference (New York: Penguin, 2014).

Matthews, Dylan. “I spent a weekend at Google talking with nerds about charity,” Vox, August 10, 2015.

Snow, Matthew. “Against Charity.” Jacobin, August 25, 2015.

Srinivasan, Amia. “Stop the Robot Apocalypse.” London Review of Books, 37 no. 18 (September 2015).

Thomson, Derek. “The Greatest Good.” The Atlantic, June 15, 2015.