Does the Effective Altruism Movement Get Giving Right?

Effective altruism is a philosophical and social movement that encourages people to ask themselves how they can most benefit others and do good through an evidence-based approach to charity. Over the last decade, it has influenced billionaires such as Bill Gates, Dustin Moskovitz, and MacKenzie Scott and resulted in millions of dollars given to “high-impact charities” annually. However, after philosophical critiques and the downfall of one of effective altruism’s most visible advocates, Sam Bankman-Fried, some thought leaders are questioning whether EA is the best philanthropic model. Those championing effective altruism praise its methodological framework for ensuring charitable donations and efforts do the most good, based on rigorous analysis and evidence, which is practical and ethically obligatory for achieving the greatest positive impact while considering the needs of all individuals equally. Those challenging effective altruism argue that its focus on quantifiable impacts can neglect hard-to-quantify important causes, such as human rights, social justice, and cultural preservation, which could lead to a narrow understanding of what constitutes a beneficial outcome.

Now, before opening our wallets, we debate the question: Does the Effective Altruism Movement Get Giving Right?

Arguing Yes: Peter Singer, Co-Founder of the Effective Altruism movement; Author of “The Most Good You Can Do”; Philosopher and Professor of Bioethics at the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University

Arguing No: Alice Crary, Co-Editor of “The Good it Promises, The Harm it Does: Critical Essays on Effective Altruism”; University Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at The New School for Social Research

Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates

Timestamps:
(03:13) Peter Singer argues that effective altruism gets giving right.

(07:36) Alice Crary argues that effective altruism does not get giving right.

(15:41) Does utilizing data and empirical evidence to identify the most impactful charitable organizations present an oversimplified approach to philanthropy?

(19:48) Are effective altruists naive about the way the real world and philanthropy work?

(23:13) What are the dangers of effective altruism?

(26:38) How do effective altruists address the issue of animal welfare?

(31:04) Peter Singer discusses how effective altruism has influenced corporations to improve conditions in factory farming.

(33:23) Peter Singer about Sam Bankman-Fried and the concept of ‘earning to give’.

(36:07) Alice Crary discusses the moral corruption of effective altruism.

(39:08) Uri Bram asks whether the negative attitude to effective altruism is a result of perceived overconfidence of the movement.

(43:29) Kate Barron-Alicante asks about who should be responsible for gathering evidence and to which organizations it should be distributed.

(49:46) What is Peter Singer’s biggest concern about effective altruism?

(53:57) Is effective altruism too utilitarian?

(54:56) Peter Singer on whether effective altruism opposes moon shots.

(59:34) Peter Singer and Alice Crary present their closing statements.

#opentodebate #debate #altruism #EffectiveAltruism #socialjustice #humanrights


===================================

===================================

[MatticusPrime]

Alice provided very wishy-washy criticisms, whereas Peter Singer provided many specific examples to support his arguments.

[urikamoment]

Alice is committing the no true Scotsman fallacy. The EA I know is the EA Singer is describing, there isn’t another one. Why she speaks of the founders of EA as if he is not one of them, I also don’t understand.

[Jordan-wnkf]

crary seems to think that to stop child deaths from malaria you need to get a BA in colonial history and then overthrow the global capitalist order, rather than distribute malaria nets

[kingifrit]

these don't even sound like ideas, its so vague. its just a sentiment

[RollingTree]

As far as I can tell from her vague points, Crary is arguing ..."Stop convincing people to spend their charity on your rationally justified causes because they are sometimes ignorantly arrogant, ineffective, or counterproductive. I want that money to go to the longstanding charity industry that I am a part of, whose spending is based on our subjective/unspecified self designated "expert" justifications." She completely ignores that the charity industry she is trying to protect is much more ignorantly arrogant, ineffective, and counterproductive, as well as extremely bloated, parasitic, nontransparent, evidence vacant, emotionally justified, and inefficient. As always ..the question ignored by the Crary's of the world, who are primarily focused on what they want to tear down because it doesn't satisfy their fantasy utopia, is ..."compared to what?". I have many criticisms of EA, but it's much better/more productive/more effective at improving the world than the traditional industry. Re one specific ...the explicit or implied criticisms that EA is elitist and condescending is hypocritical in the extreme. Also ...well noted by @urikamoment ...Crary want's to argue against her strawman, not the position/argument in front of her.