Can we stop demonizing effective altruism? Thanks.
Never in a million years did I think I’d have to write something defending altruists, but here we are. It’s like trying to argue that Gandhi or Mother Theresa were decent people. But recently, effective altruists have been under fire due to a recent profile of William MacAskill in The New Yorker titled The Reluctant Prophet of Effective Altruism.
Don’t get me wrong, there are definitely some criticisms to be made about effective altruism and the main figureheads. But overall, this world would be such a better place if more people were even aware of it and used it to guide their thinking.
Today, we’re going to discuss why people are trashing effective altruists, why it’s kind of lame, and a few theories I have about why people dunk on them so much.
But first, I need to give you a brief history of my relationship with altruism, and we also need to discuss what effective altruism is.
My twisted relationship with altruism
I came across effective while reading books on altruism because it’s something I’ve been curious about for years.
Altruism is selfish no matter how you look at it, and I’m 100% willing to die on that hill. I’m not saying altruism is bad, but I don’t believe there’s a way to be completely altruistic. Although I can have a cynical view of the world, I’m not cynical about altruism. At the end of the day, attempting to be altruistic is a net positive, even if it’s selfish.
I first started wondering about altruism when I got sober. Alcoholics Anonymous taught me self-seeking is bad. Self-seeking is doing something kind and expecting something in return. This is how I was for most of my life, and it made me a miserable human. Every kind of thing I did was transactional, and the other person often didn’t even realize it.
If I ever did something kind, I was keeping tabs and expecting something in return at some point. When people didn’t reciprocate, I’d get a ton of resentments. Then, I’d think the world is just oh so mean to me because I’m so kind and giving, but nobody does anything for me.
AA taught me that this is a fucked up way of living.
They taught me to do things without expecting anything in return and to be as selfless as possible. They taught me that being of service to others is the best way to stay sober. So, I should do the right thing just because it’s the right thing. I should also do the right thing when nobody is looking. For example, if I’m only helping a homeless person so I can brag about it later, that’s self-seeking.
I still live my life like this 10 years later, and I’ve never been happier. I actually feel like a decent human being now. I even teach my son about this, and so far, it’s worked. He helps people without thinking twice and doesn’t care if he gets something in return.
But going back to what AA taught me, I’m not sure if you caught what I said about being of service. They said, “Being of service to others is the best way to stay sober.”
Well, if I’m being selfless to stay sober, isn’t that selfish? I’d say so, but it’s win/win so who cares?
Now, I’m a big fat evolutionary psychology nerd and carried this question along with me. We evolved as a cooperative species. Altruism and reciprocity is in our nature, and I guess you can say that makes all non-sociopaths pretty decent by default. But we evolved this way because it’s beneficial to us and our genes.
If our ancestors helped people in our tribe, they’d help us survive, which helps us pass along our genes. Since this trait helped us survive, it stuck. When we help others it feels good, and I know this because I try to help others as much as possible. It feels good as hell.
If I help you because it feels good, that’s inherently selfish.
I’m not going to get into the weeds of the debate, but I always have people reply to this by saying, “But the other person feels good,” or “You’re helping them because it makes them feel good.” Either way, we feel good. We wouldn’t do it if it felt bad, so we’re doing it for an underlying selfish reason, which is often unconscious.
Again, this isn’t a bad thing. Thank God we evolved this way or we probably wouldn’t be at the top of the food chain. It’s just the reality of how we evolved, and people get all hissy pissy because we all want to believe we’re being altruistic because we’re perfect beings.
What is effective altruism?
I don’t know about you, but I like rationality. Effective altruism is a rational way of figuring out how to do the most good for the world. When I was researching altruism, I was like, “Finally! Something makes sense.”
Since the dawn of GoFundMe, I’ve felt like I’m taking crazy pills. A story of someone’s hardships go viral, and people just flood them with money. A man says he’s been walking to work 15 miles for 20 years, someone starts a $10,000 GoFundMe for a car, and the guy get’s $100k. A homeless person does something kind, and someone starts a GoFundMe for $5,000 to get them on their feet, and they get $50,000. A single mother get’s laid off, and a GoFundMe is started for $50,000 to pay her a year’s salary, and it gets $200,000.
We all sit back and hear these heartwarming stories, and our faith is restored in humanity.
Meanwhile, I’m sitting over here like, “What the fuck is wrong with you people?” I think this (and often say it out loud to my girlfriend) because these are single stories in a world where 100s of millions of people (if not billions) need help. But we give a single person, family, or organization way more than they asked for or even need.
This isn’t even considering the fact how many people just straight up lie to raise money on GoFundMe like the homeless man helping with gas. Or, the amount of money that was given to the Black Lives Matter organization for this woman to buy a mansion.
This is a result of the identifiable victim effect, and there’s been a lot of research around it. I don’t remember the exact history of why this was researched, but basically, charity organizations had to figure out how to raise money. They realized the identifiable victim effect was the best way.
Basically, a charity tells you there are thousands of starving kids in a community in Africa, and you’re like, “Pffffft. That’s a huge problem. I can’t fix that,” or we just see a large number and it’s not as personal. But, if they tell you the story of a single little girl in that village who has gone through hell and needs help, you throw your money at the organization.
It’s a flaw in our thinking, and that’s where effective altruism comes into play.
The father of effective altruism is a philosopher named Peter Singer, and he started raising some tough questions. I believe he started with animal rights, but he really thinks deeply about how we can do the most good and decrease suffering. It’s an extremely utilitarian way of thinking.
He started writing about all of the problems in the world and where we should focus our attention. He started talking about how if we buy ourselves a luxury item while people are suffering in the world, we should feel bad about that. Why is our stupid trinket or comfort item more valuable than a human life?
Eventually, a ton of nerdy math types started following Singer’s work, and they discovered some crazy stuff. For example, Malaria kills over 400,000 people per year. To protect a child from Malaria, it costs $7. Think about the last dumb thing you paid for that was more than $7. A kid’s life could be saved, but you just had to have your chai latte.
Feel like a piece of shit yet? Well, try not to. I’ll explain why later.
These researchers also started wondering what charities do with their money. What they found is even more disturbing. Charities are terrible at being transparent about how they’re using the money. Do you know how easy it is to start a charity, name it something like “Save the children fund”, get a ton of money, and do nothing helpful with it? Extremely easy.
A few weeks ago, I ran a poll to see how many people actually check to see how a charity spends money before they donate, and it was brutal.
Well, those nerdy math guys were actually hella rich and decided to start an organization after they realized all this stuff out. They ended up starting Givewell.org. Basically, Givewell does the work for you. They research the best charities in the world that are the most effective. They only give to charities that not only show what they’re doing, but the charity has to show what they’re doing actually helps.
So, when I donate, I often just donate to Givewell so I don’t have to do all of the research. After doing this for a few years, I’ve changed my view slightly, and that’s only because I think we also need to donate more to local resources. Givewell does global stuff. It’s additional work on my end, but I know of some good organizations here in Las Vegas.
My personal issues with effective altruism
Before I get into some of the more prominent voices dunking on effective altruism, I’ll give my brief opinion.
Effective altruism has changed my life for the better. Every single time I’m making a financial decision, I’m thinking of effective altruism. Before I buy a new video game or piece of computer equipment, I ask myself questions. “Do I really need this?”, “Could this money help someone else instead?” and all that stuff.
It really ruins your buzz of frivolous spending.
When I hear a heartwrenching story of an individual suffering and seeing their GoFundMe, I pause before giving. I ask if they really need my money or if they have enough already. When I see a charity that sounds good, I see if they have enough funding or need some of mine.
Hell, I even run through this process before giving a creator my money via Patreon or Substack. If they’re making hella money, I don’t sign up because they don’t need my support. If they’re making over $60k a year from Patreon, Substack or something similar, they don’t get a cent from me because that’s more than what many full-time workers make in America.
Anyways, I just think this world would be better if we were all more mindful of these things…but, I have some issues.
As with anything, effective altruism has its extremists. Although I ask myself these questions before my personal luxury spending like on new Lego sets or going to the movies with my son, I don’t feel guilty about it. Extreme effective altruists would basically telling me I’m letting someone die, and I don’t like that.
I read a ton of moral philosophy and have found more philosophers who find a good balance. Basically, my philosophy is to live comfortable enough so I’m not depressed and don’t go insane. I also make sure my son is taken care of and my girlfriend lives comfortable too. All of us give as much as possible while also living alright, and I think that’s okay.
If you want to know what I mean about extreme effective altruists, read that profile piece about William MacAskill in The New Yorker. He’s one of the leading figures for the movement, and the guy’s life is admirable, but it’s something I could never do and stay sane. He lives off like $25k a year. Some people even give up a kidney because they only need one.
Good for them, but that’s not my jam.
In addition to these types of extremes, sometimes they’re just way too utilitarian. I fancy myself a utilitarian, but holy shit. Some of these people eliminate all human emotion to a point where it’s like Ultron wanting to cleanse the world of humans for the greater good.
None of them have said this out loud, but I’m sure they talk about it in private or at the very least think it.
For me, that’s my biggest issue with effective altruists. But you’ll find these types in any movement. There are always extremists, but when you find balance, I think most movements can be pretty positive.
The demonization
No we’ve come back to where we started: the demonization.
There are people who fucking hate effective altruism, and it blows my mind. Yes, there are criticisms of certain people and certain aspects, but overall, it’s a pretty decent movement. I’d much rather have effective altruists than people throwing thousands of their hard-earned dollars at a single GoFundMe for someone who doesn’t need their money.
I was first made aware of The New Yorker piece from this tweet
That was followed up by these in the thread
The guy highlights “one that relied not on crude heuristics but on hard data.” All I can think of is, “And…?”. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky taught us the dangers of cognitive shortcuts. When it comes to giving, a heuristic we use is the identifiable victim effect and many others.
“This one person is getting a lot of attention, therefore they need the most help.” That’s a dumb way to make decisions, and it’s wrong.
I’ll come back to his other highlights when I give my theories of why people hate on effective altruism.
Michael Hobbes is just a highly opinionated journalist who always thinks the sky is falling. What inspired this piece was after I saw Freddie deBoer jump in on the hate train.
Freddie wrote a new piece titled Effective Altruism Has a Novelty Problem. I love Freddie, but I disagree with him regularly, and this is one of those places.
In this piece, he hyper-focuses on certain types of people in the effective altruism and throws the baby out with the bathwater. I think you should read it, but my takeaway is that Freddie thinks all effective altruists are just trying to be the hipsters of giving.
Hell, the subtitle is even “why does ‘doing good well’ always make you look like the cleverest boy in school?”
He sees it as a sort of virtue signaling. And while that’s definitely the case for some, it’s not the case for many.
I defend effective altruism for the same reason I defend Alcoholics Anonymous: although there are criticisms to be had, and I think we should discuss them, they’re a net positive.
There’s way too much black-and-white thinking in this world, and I wish people saw the nuances. Like, take a step back and ask, “Hmmmmm. Even though there are douchebags who are effective altruists, can I maybe learn something good from this and not do the douchebag things?”
Why people be hating
I have three theories as to why people hate on effective altruism. There are the only possibilities that make sense to me, but feel free to let me know your thoughts in the comments.
1. Holier than thou
My first theory is what I think Freddie is hitting on. People think that all effective altruists look down on others. I’m sure many do, but fuck them. Who cares? I personally don’t look down on people. I just want people to be more rational with their giving.
I truly think most people want to do good and help where they can. The problem is that we have a slew of thinking errors that make us do it the wrong way. Every day, I try to become a better thinker and decision maker because I spent the first 27 years of my life as a fucking moron.
If you want to do good and think better, I suggest reading some Peter Singer books and William MacAskill’s book. Like I said, they can get a little extreme, but the process behind the thinking is beneficial.
2. We don’t want to feel bad
I’ve written bout strategic ignorance in the past, and I think this is the other issue. We don’t want to know how much good we can be doing. Like I said, learning about this has given me a pang of guilt when I spend on things I may not need. So, rather than knowing about the major issue of human suffering around the world, we prefer not to know.
But these effective altruist assholes keep reminding us that we could be doing better, so we get mad at them.
Listen, I was taught a long time ago that emotions aren’t good or bad. They’re simply signals to take action. When I feel guilt, it doesn’t mean I’m a piece of shit; it just means I may need to change something. Like I said, I’m nowhere near an extreme altruist, but that small pang of guilt just helps me think a little bit more and keep others top-of-mind. I don’t always live up to that standard, and that’s alright. But I just don’t want to forget that there’s a lot of suffering in this world that needs our attention.
So, when I do have extra money, I remember that some could go to a cause that needs it more than I do. And it reminds me to give to a cause that’s actually doing something good.
3. Hard conversations are hard
That Michael Hobbes guy also highlighted the quote “Tragic as such events are to people immediately affected, in the big picture of things-from the perspective of humankind as a whole-even the worst of these catastrophes are mere ripples on the surface of the sea of life.”
This is such a dick move that I absolutely hate.
Let’s imagine two people are standing in front of us, and two assholes come up out of nowhere. One of the assholes punches one of the people right in the face *POW* and the other asshole stabs the other person.
You’re like “OMG! HE JUST PUNCHED THAT GUY IN THE FACE! WE NEED TO HELP THE GUY WHO GOT PUNCHED IN THE FACE!” and I’m like “Maybe we should help the guy who got stabbed first…”
Then you say, “OMFG! YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT ANYONE WHO GETS PUNCHED IN THE FACE!”
That’s what Michael Hobbes is doing, and far too many people do this. It’s a dick move, and I hate these types of people.
Sorry, tough decisions have to be made. It’s called triage. Imagine a bunch of doctors and nurses talking shit to each other measuring the severity of illnesses like a bunch of Michael Hobbeses running around.
Again, I think some effective altruists get too calculated, but overall, it’s a good habit to get into.
Let’s say I have an extra $1,000, and I say, “I’m going to give this to a good cause.” Then, on my social media feed, a GoFundMe pops up for a person who has no health insurance and needs surgery. They’re requesting $60,000, and the GoFundMe is currently $80,000 past the $60k mark and at $140,000. It’d be really fucking stupid of me to give them my $1,000 instead of giving that money to someone else.
So, don’t be a Michael Hobbes. This is such a lazy, annoying way to think and argue, and it hurts my soul. The fact that people think this is useful in debate is ridiculous, and it will trigger me until the day I die.
But yeah, those are my thoughts on effective altruism. If I had one wish, it’d be that more people learned about it and tried implementing some of the practices in their life. We all want to do good, and we can do good better, so give it a try.
I’ll leave you with some book recommendations:
The Life You Can Save: How to Do Your Part to End World Poverty by Peter Singer
The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically by Peter Singer
Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Make a Difference by William MacAskill
William has a new book coming out 8/16 titled What We Owe the Future
If you enjoyed this post, it’d mean a lot to me if you shared it. Forward it in an email, share it on social media, or whatever suits your fancy.
To stay updated follow me on Twitter and Instagram @TheRewiredSoul and subscribe to the Substack.