When first watching Peter Singer’s TED Talk on effective altruism, I had no choice but to nod along with the points he was explaining. Why do we feel generous enough to give $5 to someone on the street, but not enough to provide a mosquito net to someone thousands of miles away? Why don’t I give as much as I can to the most effective needs? Why isn’t our decision to give away $11,000 easier, if all we have to do is choose the most effective organization? At first glance, effective altruism feels like the right option; the only option for giving, if we truly want to call ourselves altruists. But in the definition, and in the practice, I think there are several inexcusable flaws, the most pertinent being the additional problems created by making decisions based solely off of numbers, not people.
According to effective altruism, we should give as much as possible to the most efficient causes. There will always be death and disease in our world, which are fine causes to attempt to fix, and those issues seem to have the most provoking statistics to “satisfy” the donor (in arguably the least satisfying way, as it strips the process of any personal connection). But there will also always be more abstract issues as well, like minority rights and fair access to education. If we only give all our money to helping the most people in what numbers and statistics tell us are the most impactful ways, we begin to determine that providing easy solutions to curable issues is more important to an individual than anything else. This lends way to a system in which problems that are harder to define or don’t have such simple solutions fall through the cracks. For a system of donating that is devoid of emotion to be truly effective, those receiving the donations must also have a lack of emotion or a want for more than mere survival, which is simply not the case.
Not only does effective altruism diminish the personal drive and satisfaction of donating one’s time and money, but it reduces the human experience for all parties involved into a data set. Without donating to causes that one cares to, but rather something that they deem the most necessary, the emotional commitment is deemed unnecessary and, as argued by Ken Berger and Robert Penna, it leads to philanthropic imperialism, which is familiar to concepts we’ve discussed in this class, just with new terminology. Effective altruists determine for others what would be most beneficial, without taking their input into account. As a class, we deemed organizations like GiveDirectly, where donors trust individuals to be able to assess their needs appropriately, to be supportive and beneficial to the integrity of the individuals. GiveDirectly supports the thought processes of the recipients, and does not implicate any sentiments of the superior decision-making process of donors, unlike effective altruism. Overall, I believe that effective altruism is an interesting take on philanthropy, yet the most rewarding and key features of altruism are the connections that are made and the mutual respect that is built when donating to causes one cares about.
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_elitist_philanthropy_of_so_called_effective_altruism#
Alison Underhill
I feel the greatest issue with effective altruism comes up during situations like you mentioned where we have to decide where to donate as a class. Obviously, as you mentioned, the most effective donation will not be to a cause that everybody can agree with, especially with a group as large as our class. Sometimes, though, putting aside our own personal cares is the only way to effective donations. I personally stand by the belief that personal biases and preferences hinder rather than enhance decision-making, and the choices one makes as a philanthropist should come from a more pragmatic set of ideals. One may support the arts highly, but in some communities it isn't a lack of support for the arts that is the greatest issue. Therefore, that person must put aside their want for support of the arts and focus on the issues that will have the greatest positive effect on the community once solved.
ReplyDeleteYou do make a point that I agree with: people, when practicing what they consider "effective altruism", do tend to focus more on numbers and quantifiable data. This calls to mind the assumed necessity for everyone in the class to include numbers in their charity pitch presentation, because we trust numbers more than abstract concepts, as you mentioned. When taking into account my perspective on the best method of giving, one should also keep in mind the causes that can't necessarily be represented in numbers, but are nonetheless critical towards the betterment of the community.
I very much enjoyed reading this post, as I am in the middle of writing my version of the third paper on effective altruism. I thought this take on it, as well as the article were very interesting to see. Personally, I can definitely see your side on how effective altruism can almost be a limitation. I agree that as philanthropists, if we completely focus our donations through following effective altruism, we can almost disregard human emotion. It can sometimes be seen as a more numbers-based look on things to see how we can do the “most good.” Thus, it may not fully grasp all the elements that surround an idea. I thought these points were very solid and bring up a good argument when looking at the actual effectiveness of effective altruism. I think that it can be important and beneficial to fully understand all the aspects of differing causes around the world before deciding where the most good could be attained. As you bring up, some ways to look at this could be by examining emotion and “human experience.”
ReplyDeleteI also found Josh’s comment to be informative. He touches on how sometimes, “putting aside our own personal cares is the only way to effective donations.” I agree with this as well, as decision making can be difficult with a lot of people who all have varying opinions. We have to look very hard at both our own beliefs, and the options to make the most educated choice.
I also enjoyed reading this post, and I think the major question we should be asking ourselves is: Do effective altruists gain anything from doing what they do? Do they actually live comfortable and fulfilling lives? To be honest, I don’t think so. Common sense tells us that effective altruists tend to “disregard… commonsensical life choices and lifestyles” (Caviola, 2017). They often make the mistake of not purchasing enough clothes, not spending enough time on themselves, and not attending prestigious and expensive schools. How then does Peter Singer, a graduate of Oxford University with two kidneys, expect more people to join the effective altruism movement? As the name implies, effective altruists gain absolutely nothing from engaging in effective altruism. Some are aware of this; that’s why they give up easily. “Behavioral research,” as stated by Jamil Zaki, “demonstrates that people repeat actions that have rewarded them in the past” (12). It's somewhat difficult for a person to continue a practice with no psychological benefit?
ReplyDeleteI’m not insinuating that international organizations do not deserve our donations. Their impact on the developing world can’t be refuted. Just last year, Oxfam “kept 125,000 Rohingya refugees safe from disease”. They also “worked with local partners in Indonesia to reach over 164,000 people affected by the earthquake and tsunami”. These, by the way, are just a few of the things this particular organization has done—through the support of effective altruists—to support those in distant regions. It turns out that effective altruism isn’t really an awful practice. The fact, however, is that effective altruists gain absolutely nothing from engaging in this practice.
References.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2oRgxxafXk&t=733s
https://www.oxfam.org.uk/what-we-do/the-impact-of-our-work
Reading your post made me happy. I like that you questioned what the difference is between giving $5 to someone on the street or donating money toward a cause in a foreign country. I do agree with you in that it is important to keep personal connections in our philanthropic givings. It makes it more meaningful for individuals, and feels as though we are actually making a difference in something we care about. I also agree with you that those that are receiving the benefits of donations and philanthropy should be able to maintain a level of agency that reaffirms their ability to choose their quality of life. This is important because it can somehow level the playing field; it doesn't allow those recipients to feel less than donors.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I challenge the idea that we should only give to what we care about. Although this is a great first step in getting involved in philanthropy and learning the ins-and-outs of how to effectively donate money, I believe there is a level of subjectivity that must be addressed. There are important issues that must be addressed as those "better off" in society continue to thrive and advance because of money or socioeconomic status, especially as there is a widening gap between the rich and the poor. That's why it might be important to ensure all people can afford to eat, have housing, and be able to have a job; rather than focus on a cause that still might be helpful to people, but in a way that does not focus on their survival. This is why it is important to look beyond what one "cares" about, because we all have different interests and goals or achievements we would like to see within our society; but it also important to address the survival needs of people who do not have the resources to just survive.
I completely share your perspective about the fact that effective altruism negatively affects the motivation, satisfaction of donating one’s time and money, and diminishes the human experience for all parties involved. I also believe that the value of personal connections is priceless and cannot be substituted. Philanthropy itself requires paying attention to human emotion and considering morals, and this is what makes the most rewarding and satisfying part of philanthropy.
ReplyDeleteThe example about the difference between giving five dollars to someone on the street rather than donating to an organization across the world really brought things into perspective for me. Considering why this is the case, personally, it all comes down to emotion and human connection for me. I have found myself in this situation a numerous amount of times, in which I didn't think twice to buy a spare meal for the man sitting outside a fast-food restaurant in the city in nothing but a thin layer of clothes within the chilling January breeze, yet I didn't often find myself thinking about what organizations in foreign countries or places far away I should support with my money. The main difference was that I could see the physical struggles the man was facing right before my eyes, and it drew to my emotions and instantly built some sort of human connection. This, I believe, is inevitable and almost instinctive in human nature, to want to help others and empathize with them. It's definitely a more difficult task to empathize with an organization where we cannot physically see and visualize the struggles of the people in need, and the fact that it is a huge distance away, with the only source of information through technology slightly desensitizes the whole ordeal of connection building.
It now boils down to balancing between the importance of personal connection and maintaining an objective viewpoint when assessing the needs of an organization. Personal connection drives people to be biased and may cause one to overlook areas where others truly need the money and time investment. Establishing a balance is the most difficult challenge that I believe philanthropists face on the daily, yet it is also the most important one. Once we overcome this challenge, I believe that philanthropy in society will progress to be the most rewarding and inclusive it has been yet.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSinger’s Ted Talk about effective altruism was very interesting because it deals with the same issue people have with donating to similar causes. What difference can a normal person make with their donation how can it be used effectively? It is a question that was difficult for me to see at first, but thanks to this class I have many tools at my disposal. It’s all about making an informed decision which as much as I love Singer and his moral philosophy, I struggle to agree with him here. Last year I studied Singer’s utilitarian point of view in terms of animal cruelty and to say he is a brilliant philosopher is an understatement. However, you bring up really good points against effective altruism. It takes the human factor out of the philanthropy and makes everything devoid of emotional connection. I also agree with the oversimplification of issues as I have learned about this in the third response paper we had. It often allows intersectional issues to go untreated because it is not treated with care and just with money. It is easy to get caught up in what is saying because sure in our lives everything could be treated as superfluous. However, giving money to the homeless or giving time to a local food kitchen would make all the difference in their lives. As John Stuart Mill would put it,”Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Kids may be starving in countries around the world but that does not change the fact that you helped someone. Life is equal no matter who and people should be allowed to make an impact on those issues they care deeply for.
ReplyDelete(Brink, David. “Mill's Moral and Political Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 21 Aug. 2018, plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/.)
Hi Alison,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your take on effective altruism in that it strips away human experience as the only factors that go into decision making are numbers. However, I believe that there is a balance between effective altruism and being able to preserve personal satisfaction towards philanthropic efforts. While numbers may diminish these values, they are the most powerful tool that people can use to demonstrate factors we cherish in well known charities, such as transparency and effectiveness. While it is great to donate to what you are most passionate about and see the benefits of your money, sometimes that may not be the most practical use of the funds to best support a community or group of people. Often times, the numbers will show what the community needs the most, and as a result, effective altruism may be a proper means of ensuring that the community is provided for in the most efficient way possible. I appreciate the point you made with gaining the input of the recipients of the donation as they are aware of their needs more than anyone else. That is a flaw in effective altruism that we must consider when donating, because this does give off an impression of superiority that we do not want affiliated with philanthropy. Gaining insight of the recipient while incorporating methods of effective altruism, in my perspective, will lead to the most effective means of donation while preserving the mutual respect that is essential in philanthropy.
Hey Alison, thank you for sharing this!
ReplyDeleteFor starters, I completely agree with everything you said, in fact, for the reflection paper I wrote on effective altruism, I explained very similar concepts to this. That being said, I think you may have explained it better in this short blog post than I did in 3 pages of writing. If we were to base this class solely on the concept of effective altruism, the Charity Pitches would get very boring, very quickly. In essence, wouldn't we all have to present on the same organization? And this is where you and I agree the most, the fact that this ideology strips the, "human experience," out of the very concept of philanthropy, and thats no fun. Another huge issue I have with the idea of effective altruism is figuring out where is actually ends, where do you draw the line at where you've hit "peak philanthropy"? Should I feel guilty that I have money to spend on luxuries when I could be donating it? Should I feel guilty that I have both my kidneys? During Peter Singer's TED Talk, he doesn't draw this magical line as to where an effective altruist stops and where someone being selfish begins, this leaves a huge gap of interpretation that left me quite confused on the matter. Do you have an idea as to where this line is? Thank you for sharing.