The Most Good You Can Do — Peter Singer
Q. What do you think will be the role of “social businesses” (American or otherwise) in creating solutions for issues like: water scarcity, poverty, or education in the world at large, and how important do you think they will be at creating positive changes in the lives of those affected? — Taimoor Bajwa
Social enterprises have a lot of potential, but we have to see if they are really going to reach the people in greatest need. So far, the verdict isn’t yet in.
Q. In recent light of decisions made in New York regarding chimpanzees and habeas corpus, what do you think the future discussion of animal rights will conclude for the “captivity” of wild animals in zoos and research facilities, also what elements of “intelligence” will play a role in decisions regarding custodial authority? — Taimoor Bajwa
I’m hopeful that courts will eventually rule that they have legal standing. This is likely to come first with animals like chimps, but perhaps in the long run it will spread.
But the meat industry is so huge and influential, that first we have to undermine it, by developing plant-based alternatives that are healthier, more environmentally sustainable, and that eliminate the cruelty of factory farming.
To add my unsolicited 2 cents to the point about the farming industry…
In addition to cultivating the vitally needed alternatives I feel the disconnect between the consumers’ awareness and the factory farms’ obligations to maximize profits plays a significant role on the demand for meat based on the fact that the agents are so far removed from what is required to get their steak on the shelves for under $10 a pound; this relationship can be continued with fruits and vegetables in that commercial farming has irreversibly harmed soil life and demand for fresh has lead to landfills of food waste.
I feel that one who is not prepared to take an animal’s life, should not be prepared to eat from it, much less create so much waste from the act, furthermore, corporate agriculture’s influence should be met by consumer education and awareness. — Taimoor Bajwa
Q. Presuming that people who run charities / non-profits are Good People, what factors make so many of them ineffective? And how might we go about changing that? — Jonathan Archer
In contrast to the business sector, charities have not had to demonstrate their effectiveness. They can get away with emotional appeals and a few photos of smiling kids. The Effective Altruism movement is changing that. So supporting the EA movement, and donating to charities recommended on websites like GiveWell.org and thelifeyoucansave.org are good ways of changing things.
Q. What do you think about competition between both non-profits and B corps and then for profit businesses in the same field? — Ross Rojek
Competition is good. But we need independent assessments of which organizations — whether non-profits or for-profits — are really doing the most good, eg to help people in extreme poverty.
Q. You’d previously used an example (the details are off, but hopefully not important to the point) suggesting that if you were willing to ruin a pair of $200 shoes to jump in the water and save a drowning child, which most people would, you should be willing to forego a purchase of equal value in order to instead contribute $200 to a trustworthy charity that would save a child’s life. While I happen to agree with the conclusion, your reasoning in coming to that conclusion confuses me. One can easily use the same reasoning to argue that if you weren’t willing to forego a $200 purchase to contribute to the charity, you also shouldn’t jump in the water and ruin your shoes to save the drowning child? The thought experiment is focusing on the shared details of two scenarios (e.g., financial loss, and lives being saved), and suggesting that it is a mistake to let the other details (e.g., proximity to life-saving event) to affect our choices/preferences. As if to consign these latter details to some realm that is outside logic or rationality when, in fact, it makes all the difference to human beings in the real world; they’re part and parcel of how we decide what we should and shouldn’t value in the world. I’m not suggesting that there’s anything wrong with appealing to someone’s reason or intuitions to have them change their preferences to bring them in line with other, firmer preferences they may have or by making the distal effects of saving a child psychologically salient, but to suggest that they have to change their preferences to make them logically consistent in this very abstracted way, seems to take advantage of a confusion in order to get them to change their preferences. — Yaniv Eyny
The point of the example is just to get people to see that there is a problem with our intuitions that needs to be sorted out. I’ve given more argument, in several of my writings, as to why we should go in the direction of saving the child AND helping the global poor.
Q. What advice do you have for high school/college students who want to be effectively altruistic but don’t have jobs yet and therefore lack the financial means available to many in your TED audience? — Hugh Jones
It’s going to depend on what the company does but everyone can give to an effective charity.
Form an EA group in your school or on your college campus. Help to educate yourselves and others about issues like global poverty, climate change, factory farming, etc, and about the different groups working on these issues. You can volunteer for some of the organizations working on these issues. And even if you don’t have much money, you can still start giving a small amount to an effective charity, to get into the habit of doing so. Then when later on you have more, it will come more easily to you.
Q. What’s more ethical: taking a job you’re really passionate about but doesn’t make as much money vs. a job you don’t feel passionate about but that would earn you tons of money that you could then donate to someone else? — Erik Torenberg
People often advise “follow your passion” but I don’t think that’s always good advice. It might be better to take the high-paying job and do more good that way. You might develop a passion for doing good, and helping effective charities. Or it might depend on what each job does, apart from the money you earn. Anyway, people’s passions change. Think about your basic values, and I hope they will lead you to want to do the most good.
Ophelie Lechat Head of Content & Community, SitePoint
Hi Peter, thanks for doing this AMA. What advice do you have for the workers and managers of for-profit companies (specifically technology workers), who may not be eligible for b-corp status, but want to integrate effective altruism into their work?
Q. For people in SF who notice the stark contrasts in quality of life among its residents, how do you prioritize helping locally vs helping globally? — Erik Torenberg
It may sound tough, but you can do much more good per $ by helping people globally.
Q. I have many inspired, passionate, and good friends who can’t find their niche in the job market. They’re non-technical. How would you advise folks to explore their passions without missing out on the big things in life that require moneys (buying a home, starting a family, etc)? — Narek Khachatryan
They need to keep trying. We still need non-technical people, with good human relations skills. And they may need to lower their material expectations, too. It’s possible to have a home and start a family without a great deal of money.
Q. Some younger folks who are overqualified to help mentor youth and children don’t feel qualified to give back, like they haven’t earned their badges or credibility yet. Is this just doubt, or should younger folks wait until they’ve achieved some substantial accomplishments in life in order to “inspire” and help? — Narek Khachatryan
They should do what they can do now, and not wait.
I’m out of time, everyone, sorry.. Thanks for the questions, and I hope you found the answers helpful. For more info, please get hold of The Most Good You Can Do, or go to www.thelifeyoucansave.org or www.effectivealtruism.org.
“An optimistic and compelling look at the positive impact that giving can have on the world.”
Bill and Melinda Gates
Peter Singer’s books and ideas have been disturbing our complacency ever since the appearance of Animal Liberation. Now he directs our attention to a new movement in which his own ideas have played a crucial role: effective altruism. Effective altruism is built upon the simple but profound idea that living a fully ethical life involves doing the “most good you can do.” Such a life requires an unsentimental view of charitable giving: to be a worthy recipient of our support, an organization must be able to demonstrate that it will do more good with our money or our time than other options open to us. Singer introduces us to an array of remarkable people who are restructuring their lives in accordance with these ideas, and shows how living altruistically often leads to greater personal fulfillment than living for oneself.
The Most Good You Can Do develops the challenges Singer has made, in the New York Times and Washington Post, to those who donate to the arts, and to charities focused on helping our fellow citizens, rather than those for whom we can do the most good. Effective altruists are extending our knowledge of the possibilities of living less selfishly, and of allowing reason, rather than emotion, to determine how we live. The Most Good You Can Do offers new hope for our ability to tackle the world’s most pressing problems.
