In my sophomore year at NYU studying humanities, I had a prof. named Sidney Offit. He was a Zionist, and featured TV commentator on WNEW-TV back in the 70's and 80's. It was a fun class. Posing hypotheticals and gauging student comments aloud. The class was an elective on "Public Opinion in America." He posed the question, "Would you see every artwork in the world destroyed, or shoot a homeless man in the head?" I thought, well, man created the art, and that we could be undercutting ourselves if we killed the man. Where's the appreciation? So for me, all art work must go. Unfortunately, and surprisingly, I was alone in my opinion! 😬 You'd think a liberal institution like NYU would appreciate my opinion. I sneered at and asked, "How could you destroy the world's art for burden to society? They even mention great works! 😄 I replied, "I can cannot determine the value of a life." It went unresolved and Sid was grinning with his trademark bowtie and blazer, "How about better 'Red' than dead?" 😂
(Just Googled him. Just turned 96 and still wearing a bowtie! 😊👍)
Interesting. Just learned Offit was Vonnegut's best friend and editor. He notes Vonnegut's "Special Message" in an interview:
"The Dresden atrocity, tremendously expensive and meticulously planned, was so meaningless, finally, that only one person on the entire planet got any benefit from it. I am that person. I wrote this book, which earned a lot of money for me and made my reputation such as it is. One way or another, I got two or three dollars for every person killed. Some business I'm in." - Kurt Vonnegut, Special Message, Franklin Library Edition, Slaughterhouse-Five. 😬
Mike, yeah, that’s one of the reason I find modern moral philosophy to be misguided. It’s all based on increasingly unlikely or downright absurd “dilemmas,” like the infamous trolly ones, which seem designed solely to get to a “gotcha!” moment. Vonnegut was a great writer and a better human being than most.
Excellent article, thank you so much. I am reading Peter Singer assays on “ethics in the real world” and find lots of good wisdom in there. I could also cut him a slack for being surrounded by repugnant people (on top of the repugnant conclusion), since Seneca was as well, although in very different circumstances and with different aims, and yet I find Seneca so enlightening. But I have major problems with EA. First, it reduces altruism to a financial proposition. Make as much money as you do, sacrifice people and humiliate them if need be, and then give to people in the world. This reduction to a financial proposition (money is as green in Kenya as in the US and more help can be done in Kenya than in the US for the same amount) neglects the benefits of non financial acts, that have much better effect when local. Staying with a sick person, consoling, helping a neighbor, taking care of somebody’s kid when the parents are ill, supporting your spouse or relatives in time of crises. Acts-based ethics are not only financial. Second, this financial emphasis lead to horrible distortions. Would MacAskill save the Mona Lisa if the child drowning was his own? To give to charity for whatever future use? Does the potential for a future benefit trumps the actual benefit? And for the process of overpopulate the world in the expectation of a new Einstein, we should beware of the new Hitler, no? Sorry for the long message but great posts cause reflection. I like Singer, and would agree that is a good tool for some delineated tasks (find charity), but outside of that, i embrace the name and walk away from the method.
Massimo, I’ve long been a fan (I used to regularly attend your meetups at Society for Ethical Culture when I lived in New York) and I thoroughly enjoyed the book you edited called “How to live a good life,” which presented 15 different perspectives/philosophies on how to answer the title question. Given that one of the essays was dedicated to Effective Altruism, it left the impression that, though you wouldn’t endorse the full program (you wrote the essay on Stoicism, after all), you did find enough of its ideas worthy enough for consideration, at least insofar as one is working out their own philosophy of life.
This is where I land. Is the dominant ethical framework behind EA (consequentialism) logically sound? No, but neither is virtue ethics. Neither is, well, any ethical framework, but we needn’t set the bar so high. In my view, what’s important is that both consequentialism and virtue ethics make valuable contributions to the question of how we should live our lives. I’d argue we don’t need to lose sleep over taking any of them to their logical extremes because that’s never going to happen anyway. Hopefully I’m not raising your ‘No True Scotsman’ hairs by mentioning Stoicism and EA in the same breath, but they’ve both lent valuable insights to how I launch the arrow.
I share your critique that, to put it slightly differently, the existence of charity is itself proof that the underlying system is deeply flawed. Indeed, if it were working well, there wouldn’t be any need for charity (at least not on the scale at which it exists today). However, I don’t think this fact is sufficient to then conclude that neither I nor other privileged (i.e. not rich, but middle-income members of high-income nations) individuals should not give to charity or that we should disregard the whole enterprise. (To be fair, you didn’t outright say this, and indeed you mentioned you yourself give to charities you think are plausibly good, but the overall effect of your post’s charity skepticism could well come off as a prescription for what people should, or in this case, should not do. And this worries me. More on this soon.)
I think it’s important to distinguish between descriptive claims about the whole and prescriptive claims for individuals. On the whole, it’s unfortunate we need to have charity, but that’s the world we currently inhabit. I’m sure you’ve seen ads from nonprofits saying “take my job away.” And surely, the aim of The Against Malaria Foundation is to one day close its doors. Similarly, environmentalists are sometimes derided as hypocrites for flying in planes, but they too have to live in the world they’re trying to change. True, it would be better to wave a wand and have progressive taxation in the US (where I live), but while I continue to advocate for that, I also focus on what’s more within my control, and that’s charitable donations to effective charities, at 10% of my income. And doing so does not preclude one also maintaining a Stoic practice, volunteering locally, doing direct work, and voting.
I worry that the (otherwise very healthy) conversation about charity skepticism more broadly and the more narrow critiques of how EA in particular thinks about charity ultimately end up convincing people not to give anything. That would be a real shame. Especially if the reasons for quitting are ultimately due to unrealistic standards or the inability to live with the discomforts of ambiguity.
One thing I like about EA is it itself sprung out of charity skepticism and it ultimately worked to provide surer bets on where charity can do a ton of good, particularly in terms of global health and wellbeing.. And then of course it evolved and began to tackle other noble pursuits. Are there trade-offs between animal welfare and human welfare? Do we have an obligation to people alive 1000 years from now? Can you really use units like QALY as an imperfect but useful measure to compare charities? I don’t see these questions as hits against EA. These conversations are the lifeblood of EA. Did WIll MacAskill really advocate for taking the painting over the child in the burning building? In a way, who cares? EA is not a church and Will is not its priest. It’s not a monolith, and as movements go, I can’t think of another with greater viewpoint diversity than EA.
Finally, you mentioned that EA has had unfortunate subscribers -- people like SBF and Elon Musk. But this isn’t a reason to discard the underlying philosophy -- after all, Stoicism counts Jeff Bezos among its ranks, along with plenty of tech bros. And on the concept of thought experiments -- Epictetus likened the death of a child to losing one’s favorite cup. The point is it’s not hard to cherry pick the eye raising stuff in any body of literature. What matters is if the sensational bits are indicative of something rotten within. In the case of both EA and Stoicism, assuredly no. And indeed I don’t think these lines of argument follow in the spirit of steelmanning.
Perhaps I’m a walking contradiction or maybe I’m just hedging my bets, but I’m someone who has been heavily influenced by both Stoicism and EA. I see each of their strengths and limitations and, yes, some inherent tension between, but I have fairly high confidence that how I’m living my life and the mark I’m able to leave on the world is much greater thanks to their positive influences.
Bobby, thanks for the kind words and for your thoughtful comments. Let me add some reflections.
> Is the dominant ethical framework behind EA (consequentialism) logically sound? No, but neither is virtue ethics <
I guess we’ll have to disagree here. I find the conceptual framework behind virtue ethics to be very sound, in agreement with modern understanding of how “ethics” evolved, both biologically and culturally. I think moral philosophy took two sharp wrong turns after the Enlightenment, first with Kant’s deontology then with Bentham/Mill utilitarianism-consequentialism. I’ve written about this in the past, and I may return to it in the future, because it’s an important discussion.
> Stoicism and EA in the same breath, but they’ve both lent valuable insights to how I launch the arrow <
If that combination works for you, by all means, of course. But I find the tension between the two approaches to lead to irreconcilable differences.
> I share your critique that, to put it slightly differently, the existence of charity is itself proof that the underlying system is deeply flawed <
Yes, but let me be clear about this point, as other commenters have also attributed to me opinions that I do not hold. (I’m sure it’s my fault for not having expressed myself clearly.) While I do think that charity is an indication of systemic problems, and I do think the systemic problems should take priority, I think charity does good and it is virtuous to engage in charitable acts. What I reject is EA’s specific approach to charity giving. The notion of hyper-quantification, for instance, which gives a veneer of science but risks leaving a number of imponderables unaccounted for because they cannot be quantified. Or the idea of longtermism, which I find absurd. Or organizations like 80000-hours, which are predicated on the notion that it’s okay to pursue careers that may be soul-destroying, and which reinforce the systemic problems, because then one can give more. And of course the fact that charity provides cover for billionaires who exploit others and exercise inordinate political influence outside the democratic process. So, it isn’t charity in itself I object to, it’s EA’s vision for and use of charity.
> I worry that the (otherwise very healthy) conversation about charity skepticism more broadly and the more narrow critiques of how EA in particular thinks about charity ultimately end up convincing people not to give anything. That would be a real shame <
Yes, it would be. But see my extended comment just above.
> after all, Stoicism counts Jeff Bezos among its ranks, along with plenty of tech bros <
I hear you, but there is a crucial difference: Jezos is not a Stoic (see: https://medium.com/lotus-fruit/nope-jeff-bezos-is-not-a-stoic-4a29c36a35c6), and neither are the bros crowd. And they have been called multiple times on it. Billionaire support, by contrast, has been baked into EA from the beginning, it is systemic and entrenched. It follows from the 80000-hours logic. So I do think there is a difference there.
> Epictetus likened the death of a child to losing one’s favorite cup <
That actually makes perfect sense if you believe in a providential universe. And modern Stoicism explicitly rejects some of the tenets of ancient Stoicism. Again, the child vs Picasso argument is baked into the very logic of EA. There is a difference.
> indeed I don’t think these lines of argument follow in the spirit of steelmanning <
I honestly don’t think my article presented EA as a strawman. I wasn’t being very original either, much of the criticism I compiled is common in discussions of EA.
> I have fairly high confidence that how I’m living my life and the mark I’m able to leave on the world is much greater thanks to their positive influences <
I’m sure that’s true. And, again, if that works for you, that’s good! But it doesn’t work for me, and — given the popularity of EA — I thought a bit of reasoned criticism would make a positive contribution to the discussion.
I guess I should mention my mild phobia. There’s an aversion to too strong an identification with any one group (though I’m willing to be practical when speaking) and any one framework. The reasons, respectively, are the dangers of groupthink and the reality that “the world” is simply too complex to ever be fully captured by any single framework. It is this I had in mind when I questioned soundness, perhaps not the best word choice.
As a complete framework, I do not think consequentialism would ultimately yield the kind of world I’d want to live in. As a set of tools for thinking rigorously about very difficult questions (triaging how our limited resources are spent), I think it’s indispensable and I wouldn’t want to live in a world without it.
Skeptics are correct that one cannot perfectly compare what at times seem like apples and oranges, but I think they’re wrong to suggest that just because it’s difficult it means we cannot make any meaningful progress. And, to be sure, what one person may call consequentialism, others would simply call data-driven decision making. I do think my next $100 donation can go further with an organization like Give Directly, which facilitates unconditional cash transfers to the very poor, than to my local cat shelter, though I really love cats. Now, perhaps that one is too easy. But all it takes is admitting it’s possible to compare these two options and we’re beginning to sound utilitarian, basing our decisions (not solely) but primarily on the expected outcome of our actions. And if tomorrow we discover something better, we can dispassionately update and follow the data, not merely our passions. I think this ability to overcome simply giving to what personally moves us for what is less attractive but will plausibly do more good is a kind of superpower. The EA urging to give more and put a lot more thought on where to give is vital and especially healthy in response to a world (in the US at least) where the prevailing attitude is that good is good and all charity is the same, which is simply untrue.
Naturally, because I’m framework averse and hedge my bets (call me a skeptic!) I diversify not only my giving portfolio, but my “doing good” portfoilio, for indeed EA is not urging anyone to replace the business of cultivating one's character with signing a check.
I signed the Giving What We Can 10% pledge back in 2017 and I encourage others living in wealthy countries to do the same. I encourage you Massimo if you haven’t already. The pledge does not dictate where you give, simply that you do give to organizations you believe are most impactful. My family has primarily focused our 10% on recommendations from charity evaluators like Give Well, but beyond that we’ve also supported organizations like Democracy Now and other causes. The point is, the conversation doesn’t need to stall on “system change” vs “bandaids” (often a dubious distinction IMO), for one can diversify. Give Directly is a sure-fire bet to help improve the lives of the very poor today. And Democracy Now? That’s harder to quantify, but nevertheless it’s invaluable to have independent anti-corporate news organizations in the US that act with integrity. Quick aside: EA also places long uncertain bets with things like hits-based giving and worrying about existential risks.
But naturally the recipe for eudaimonia requires more than giving. So I also borrow from the tools of Stoicism (and philosophy more generally), without fully buying into its complete framework, because of the aforementioned aversion. (Perhaps disillusionment with Catholicism in my youth messed me up, but I digress :D) I think Stoicism is more useful in helping guide my day-to-day, ever mindful of the dichotomy of control, not being too quick to assent to fleeting thoughts, and accepting outcomes with equanimity, so long as I attempted to follow the cardinal virtues. I think it’s less useful in evaluating charities and I fear its insularity, for one can easily convince themselves they’re acting virtuously, especially when emphasis on outcomes is de-emphasized.
One final thought lest I ramble too much about my personal philosophy. In Stoicism, there’s the notion of the sage. No one actually believes real sages exist, but it helps to have something ideal by which to measure yourself, something to aspire to. I view the broad EA framework and Peter Singer’s hard argument for giving similarly. It can be extremely demanding and seemingly ask for the impossible, sussing out what role individuals, organizations, and movements can do to best allot our resources of time, attention and money into solving and/or ameliorating the world’s problems. Sure, the answers are not going to be perfect, but it’s right to shoot for the stars.
> There’s an aversion to too strong an identification with any one group <
I hear you, that’s why I consider myself a skeptic, not full fledged Stoic. Nevertheless, there is a danger in mixing and matching too many things. It paves the road to rationalization and/or incoherence.
> As a set of tools for thinking rigorously about very difficult questions (triaging how our limited resources are spent), I think it’s indispensable and I wouldn’t want to live in a world without it. <
Fair enough, I guess we’ll agree to differ here. I think both consequentualism and Kantian-style deontology were massively bad turns in moral philosophy.
> what one person may call consequentialism, others would simply call data-driven decision making <
Not at all the same thing. I’m in favor of data-driven decision making, though even that can be abused. I’m not in favor of consequentialism as a philosophy.
> all it takes is admitting it’s possible to compare these two options and we’re beginning to sound utilitarian <
> EA is not urging anyone to replace the business of cultivating one's character with signing a check <
Perhaps not, but that seems to be a logical consequence of the approach. Indeed, EA’s insistence on concepts like “make the most money so you can donate” may be seen as a positive incentive to worsen our character.
> Giving What We Can 10% pledge <
Sounds good. But why 10? Why not 20, 30, 50? I think people can give far more than 10% and still live above poverty level. Aren’t they obliged to do so by consequentialist logic?
> Democracy Now? That’s harder to quantify, but nevertheless it’s invaluable to have independent anti-corporate news organizations <
I agree. And I do donate to a number of organizations like that. But how many “utils” are they worth? How do I weigh the importance of people starving right now somewhere in the world vs the long-term future of a relatively privileged American democracy?
> Perhaps disillusionment with Catholicism in my youth messed me up <
I’m also a recovering Catholic.
> In Stoicism, there’s the notion of the sage <
Thankfully abandoned by middle and late Stoics like Panaetius and Epictetus.
I think the concept of hubris might be relevant to this theme? Actually if you have time an article about the concept of Hubris and maybe Nemesis too from a Stoic perspective would be something I would love to read
Hi Massimo — thanks for writing up your thoughts on this, it was an interesting read! I have so much to say about so many parts of this — but I think your point about system change may be most important so I’ll try to stick to that.
First off, I definitely agree with you that what’s needed most is system change – we shouldn’t have the type of extreme global income inequality we currently see, and we can blame capitalism for at least a part of that inequality.
Where I disagree with you, though, is what this means in terms of individual action. I think there are at least two ways to think about changes to the world — there’s the view from above (ideally, what should happen?) and there’s the view from where we currently are (what can each of us do right now to help?)
Correct me if you disagree, but it doesn’t seem like there’s a lot each of us can do on an individual level to change the root causes of global wealth inequality. So we’re left with a choice of doing nothing because the system is flawed, or doing what we can (within the flawed system) to prevent needless suffering and death. In my opinion, the latter is clearly more in line with virtues of compassion and moral courage, and better for cultivating character as well. We shouldn’t ignore the suffering of those on the other side of the world just because their suffering is the result of a flawed system. And if we do find ways to engage in pushing for system change (which I think we should – it’s just unclear to me what exactly those are) that wouldn’t seem to exclude also improving lives in the here and now. (Imagine the analogy of a doctor whose patient is bleeding out from some sort of disease. That doctor can’t let the patient bleed out while they investigate the cause – they must both stop the bleeding and work to find/cure the cause.)
You mentioned that you think charitable giving contributes to the harmful systems at the root causes of global income inequality – and I have to say I don’t really understand this, and am also wondering how much you think this is the case, given it seems from another comment that you still regularly give to charities? I agree that some billionaires misuse charity as a way to “write off” harms (kind of like carbon offsetting) but I would characterise this as a misuse of charity rather than something intrinsic to it. I certainly don’t think ordinary people giving what they can to provide access to resources we’re lucky enough to already have in high income countries (clean water, safety from diseases like malaria, etc.) is contributing to any harmful system, any more so than other actions we take in our daily life. And I think what is overlooked here is the harm of not doing what we can to prevent this suffering.
(Also, I want to push back a tiny bit on the notion that charitable giving can’t or doesn’t get at system change at all. Many orgs are working on advocating for changes in policy at the government level that would affect the way the system functions – think factory farming, climate, etc.)
On your point about taxes being a better approach, I’m wondering if you could talk a bit more about why you see taxes as being outside of the system/not reinforcing the system. At least in the US, government is very much in the pocket of capitalists and billionaires – and this affects how taxes are spent. (The famous bank bailout in 2008 is just one example.) So as tax-payers, we don’t really have much agency over how our funds are spent, beyond trying to vote in the best choice in an (often) series of not-great choices. So it would seem to be that we’d have more agency in terms of making sure our money is acting in line with our virtues by choosing how it’s spent through strategic, high-impact donations.
(Btw, as might be evident from the number of times I've used the phrase, I work at Giving What We Can, but my views here are my own!)
Alana, thanks for the thoughtful comment. As you say, there is a lot going on here, and I’ve already written a long essay. Still, let me try to clear up my thinking in light of your objections.
> Correct me if you disagree, but it doesn’t seem like there’s a lot each of us can do on an individual level to change the root causes of global wealth inequality <
There isn’t a lot I can do as individual to cure malaria, or end poverty, or war. So that doesn’t strike me as tipping the balance either way.
> we’re left with a choice of doing nothing because the system is flawed, or doing what we can (within the flawed system) to prevent needless suffering and death <
I think that’s a false dichotomy. We *can* do something to change the system, which is why I give money to organizations that aim at that, including groups that fight for the defense of democracy, organizations that protect journalists, groups that fight corruption in politics, and so forth. Yes, I also donate to a small number of disaster relief organizations, but I consider those to be bandaids, not conducive to fundamental change. Moreover, there are other ways to be politically active, other than donating money and voting. For instance, I coordinate with like minded people to push state legislators to pass certain bills that I think are important. I at least occasionally participate in street protests, and of course I teach and write, which I do consider political (in the broad, Aristotelian sense) activities.
> We shouldn’t ignore the suffering of those on the other side of the world just because their suffering is the result of a flawed system <
I don’t, but I don’t see anything in EA that attacks the system itself. This may be the result of my limited readings on the subject, but others have raised exactly the same criticism.
> You mentioned that you think charitable giving contributes to the harmful systems at the root causes of global income inequality – and I have to say I don’t really understand this <
Take the EA concept that people should choose highly lucrative careers so that they make more money and can therefore donate more. Setting aside the alienation inherent in the approach, don’t you think that simply entrenches the system? Moreover, it gives those people cover: “yes, I’m a capitalist, but I donate…”
> I certainly don’t think ordinary people giving what they can to provide access to resources we’re lucky enough to already have in high income countries (clean water, safety from diseases like malaria, etc.) is contributing to any harmful system, any more so than other actions we take in our daily life <
I disagree. And yes, a lot of actions we take in daily life also contribute to entrenching the system. Without going nuts, I pay attention to what I buy, from whom, and how much, for instance.
> At least in the US, government is very much in the pocket of capitalists and billionaires – and this affects how taxes are spent <
Indeed, which is why I mentioned above that I try to engage in a range of political activities, including giving money to anti-corruption organizations. I’m not convinced that EA’s quantitative approach (“utils”?) would weigh those correctly, because it’s next to impossible to quantify the effect of corruption, or of the continuation of a given system.
> as tax-payers, we don’t really have much agency over how our funds are spent <
While strictly true, as I said before, that’s the case for any other issue as well. And it becomes an easy excuse: “oh well, I can’t change the system, so I might as well donate a few bucks to X charity, that way my conscience is clear.” Okay, that may have been a bit uncharitable on my part, but you see what I mean.
And then there is the issue of rich people and corporations, who literally buy our good will with relatively paltry donations (compared to the wealth), thus perpetuating the very same system that created a lot of our problems in the first place.
Wow, that was a very quick reply! Thanks for engaging!
> There isn’t a lot I can do as an individual to cure malaria, or end poverty, or war. So that doesn’t strike me as tipping the balance either way.
But there’s a lot you can do as an individual to prevent people from dying from malaria and other diseases that affect the world’s poorest. $7 donated to The Malaria Consortium provides a full course of preventative medicine for one child, which is incredibly effective at preventing that child from contracting malaria, which kills around 600,000 people per year.
> I think that’s a false dichotomy. We *can* do something to change the system, which is why I …
Yes, agreed – sloppy language on my part. We can and should take actions to try to influence the system, but I still think things like the root causes of global income inequality are pretty difficult to isolate and solve – while I certainly think there is value in defending democracy, protecting journalists, fighting political corruption, voting, passing legislation, and protesting (and have engaged in similar activities myself!) I’m sceptical that this is enough to redress the huge imbalance in access to resources that exists in the world, as this is an incredibly complex problem. Even if you could pass some incredible legislation, what would it say? What’s the theory of change from passing legislation and defending democracy in one’s own country to a world where nobody has to die of preventable disease?
More importantly, though, I think we can both agree that if we are able to influence the system in these ways, it will most certainly take time. While that time is passing, people are needlessly dying, and if we can prevent even some of those deaths by giving a fraction of our resources to proven interventions in global health, that seems like a moral thing to do. I see charitable giving as complementary to the activities you mentioned, and not in opposition to it!
> don’t see anything in EA that attacks the system itself. This may be the result of my limited readings on the subject, but others have raised exactly the same criticism.
It’s true that this is one of the most common criticisms of EA. I think it has a grain of truth, but is also based on a limited understanding (and on criticism begetting criticism, as opinions are influenced heavily by others’ thoughts on the topic.) There are several EA-aligned organisations that are working on influencing policy – these include LEEP, CATF, most of Giving Green’s recommended charities, The Humane League, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, and the Good Food Institute, to name a few that come to mind off the top of my head.
> Take the EA concept that people should choose highly lucrative careers so that they make more money and can therefore donate more. Setting aside the alienation inherent in the approach, don’t you think that simply entrenches the system? Moreover, it gives those people cover: “yes, I’m a capitalist, but I donate…”
I was hoping you would bring this up, as I didn’t have room to address it in my first comment! I’ve actually written in detail about this concern here: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/misconceptions-and-concerns-about-effective-altruism-and-charity-evaluation#5-effective-altruism-is-about-making-money-and-donating-it-which-reinforces-oppressive-structures (You might find some of the other misconceptions & concerns on that page interesting as well.) I will add to what I’ve written in the article above that even if some EAs decide to enter lucrative careers so that they have more to donate (and in my view, this is far from being a core part of EA) I don’t see this as necessarily entrenching the system. There are a range of highly lucrative careers — including doctor, programmer, etc. — that do no greater harm than many other professions. And for the ones that arguably do, or at least explicitly reinforce capitalism – banker, investor, etc – the number of these jobs doesn’t go up with greater interest in them. This means that it’s a choice of having bankers who don’t also donate or bankers who do also donate and I’d argue the latter is better.
>yes, a lot of actions we take in daily life also contribute to entrenching the system. Without going nuts, I pay attention to what I buy, from whom, and how much, for instance.
I do too. But I also recognise that when I heat my house, I’m contributing to emissions as well as the poor health of people who live in sacrifice zones, when I eat in a restaurant, I could be enabling the terrible labor practices of the large distributor the restaurant buys its food from, etc. If you buy any clothes that aren’t secondhand, you’re very likely enabling oppressive sweatshops. (And I do try to buy all of my clothes secondhand for this reason, btw.) Additionally, even seemingly virtuous actions that mitigate one harm could entrench another – for example, fighting for better environmental standards for buildings could make housing affordability worse and vice versa.
I think it's definitely important to think about potential harm, but I also think it's something that happens in all aspects of life, not just charity. And for some reason, I don't often hear these concerns get brought up beyond the charity sector, which I think is an oversight.
>While strictly true, as I said before, [not having agency over how funds are spent] is the case for any other issue as well.
A bit confused here. I think it’s pretty clear that I have far more agency over the spending of my donations than my taxes, given with the former I can choose the interventions I want to support. Do you disagree?
>And then there is the issue of rich people and corporations, who literally buy our good will with relatively paltry donations (compared to the wealth), thus perpetuating the very same system that created a lot of our problems in the first place.
As mentioned in my original comment, I see providing cover to billionaires as a misuse of charity, not something intrinsic to it or that should affect how everyday people approach giving.
>And it becomes an easy excuse: “oh well, I can’t change the system, so I might as well donate a few bucks to X charity, that way my conscience is clear.” Okay, that may have been a bit uncharitable on my part, but you see what I mean.
Interestingly, I think we’re concerned about the same thing, here – using one type of action as a justification for not doing another. I still think the best way to improve the world is to engage both in efforts to change the system and in efforts to alleviate preventable suffering now — recall the doctor analogy in my original comment.
> But there’s a lot you can do as an individual to prevent people from dying from malaria and other diseases that affect the world’s poorest <
But there is a lot I can do about an almost infinite amount of problems. And, unlike EA, I simply don’t think there is a uniquely objective way to quantify what my priorities should be. So I make decisions based on a number of criteria, some of which are personal choices that could reasonably be questioned or defended. The world is too complicated for EA’s simplistic approach, in my opinion. And I’m okay with the idea that I might be making some “sub-optimal” choices, from time to time.
> I still think things like the root causes of global income inequality are pretty difficult to isolate and solve <
So are the root causes of almost everything else. And in fact, I’m not that confident that you are correct here. I think we have a pretty good idea of what sort of systemic problems we face. We just don’t want to face them, and giving to charities (again, I do it too!) is a perfect way to shield our conscience.
> I think we can both agree that if we are able to influence the system in these ways, it will most certainly take time <
Sure, call it a more sensible type of “longtermism.” Why are we so obsessed with getting results here and now? That strikes me as myopic, or perhaps even self-serving, something to feed our ego and convince us that we are good people after all.
> I see charitable giving as complementary to the activities you mentioned, and not in opposition to it <
As I pointed out in another thread under this post, I don’t have a problem with charity per se, I have a problem with EA’s way of looking at charity. Let’s not confuse the two: my arguments are anti-EA, not anti-charity.
> There are several EA-aligned organisations that are working on influencing policy <
I’m sure there are. But are they aligned with EA simply in the sense that they want to make sure to be effective, or are they aligned with EA’s overall philosophy? How do they calculate their “utils,” are they engaged in longtermism? Do they tell people to engage in soul-wrenching careers so they can make more money to donate?
> even if some EAs decide to enter lucrative careers so that they have more to donate (and in my view, this is far from being a core part of EA) I don’t see this as necessarily entrenching the system <
I guess we’re going to disagree on this one. Setting aside that even being a doctor shouldn’t be a highly lucrative career in the first place (I’m with John Rawls on this one), Wall Street and Silicon Valley are far more lucrative, and far more likely to destroy the world.
> I think it's definitely important to think about potential harm, but I also think it's something that happens in all aspects of life, not just charity. And for some reason, I don't often hear these concerns get brought up beyond the charity sector, which I think is an oversight <
I do hear it, a lot. And at any rate, what’s your suggestion here?
> I think it’s pretty clear that I have far more agency over the spending of my donations than my taxes, given with the former I can choose the interventions I want to support <
You neglect that charities are bandaids that entrench the system. You do have more agency there, but that agency is not in a position to effect significant change.
> I see providing cover to billionaires as a misuse of charity, not something intrinsic to it or that should affect how everyday people approach giving <
Again, agree to disagree. I see it as stemming directly from EA’s logic.
> I still think the best way to improve the world is to engage both in efforts to change the system and in efforts to alleviate preventable suffering now <
Agreed. Again, my argument is not that we shouldn’t donate, it’s that we shouldn’t embrace EA as a philosophy.
Thanks for the reply! I have more to say on this perceived system change vs charity dichotomy (I don't think it's a justifiable dichotomy) but will leave it at this for the sake of both of our time:
My overall feeling after reading your replies is that I'd encourage you to read a bit more broadly about EA as well as take a look at the page I linked to earlier, which addresses many of these concerns/attempts to clarify aspects of them that are often misunderstood due to an imbalance of media attention as well as (like I said before) criticisms begetting more criticisms. Here's the link again: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/misconceptions-and-concerns-about-effective-altruism-and-charity-evaluation
As someone who has been involved in EA since 2016 and works full time at an EA-aligned organisation, I can say that my impression of EA is not at all what you quote above. And while I think it's certainly important to remind people that donating isn't a way to get off the hook for doing anything else, I don't think that's what EA is advocating. Rather, it's opening up an important conversation about the power we all have to effect change in the world and how to action that power.
Alana, thanks for engaging. I don’t think the impression I gave of EA is misleading. Working within an EA organization certainly gives you a different perspective, but not necessarily a better one. I also wanted to be clear that I am not against charitable donations, I’m against the way EA thinks about charitable donations. Cheers!
I share your concerns Massimo, so I enjoyed your reflections. EA has always struck me as being, paradoxically, both overly simplistic and overly complicated in its approach, in addition to its many other problems.
1. I give a small amount to help Ukraine win. I know Russians will die, though I like Russians. Though there are moral questions, I will continue to contribute to Ukraine.
2. On the lighter side, please buy German made suites.
I'm more in the utilitarian camp, but I share most of your concerns about EA.
Focusing on what's measurable ends up missing a lot of the hard-to-measure problems. What are the circumstances in the poor countries that's keeping them from, for example, getting rid of parasites? How do you get economic development and good governance in these countries so that this isn't a problem that requires an outside charity to solve? There's definitely people thinking hard about these kinds of problems within and adjacent to EA, but what often gets presented is the simplistic picture of "this project saves X lives at $Y so it's more effective than this other project".
Satoru, exactly. Again, I’m all in favor of quantifying things if such practice improves things. But an obsession with quantification easily leads misguided priorities.
Thanks for this article. I didn’t understand what EA was several years ago when I was on the board of directors of a music school. The executive director wanted our help ‘quantifying’ what good our charitable donations did for our students. I drew a blank at first, thinking that the worth of kids learning to make music spoke for itself. No-o-o-o, I was told. The Millennials need facts and figures before they'll double-tap their wallet app. It felt like a fool’s errand to count noses and spin up dollar-per-student/lesson stats and if I’d save Mozart or a first-year violinist. Still, we did it. Donations kept flowing in - not unlike the sun always returning to Chinese citizens because they banged gongs during each and every eclipse.
Now I understand what was behind the push to nail a cloud to the wall. I appreciate the enlightenment.
David, I’m all in favor of data-driven and evidence-based approaches. But as Aristotle said, it is unwise to pretend more precision than the subject matter allows. Some people think that if you can put a number on something you’ve done something valuable, and in the process they end up ignoring things that are hard to quantify.
Thank you so much for this review. I had the similar concerns about EA and some of their practices. Evaluating the effectiveness of charities and using Bayesian reasoning are very helpful practices. On the other hand, having only one metric for evaluating all ethical actions in a very complex world doesn't make much sense to me. I like the idea of the Hierocles's circle of concerns to organize priorities of ethical action. Also, virtue ethics using historical examples of people's character and actions to guide our behavior is a helpful guide. Role ethics and mentorship is an ethical community are also more helpful than calculating arbitrary utils that magically agree with your cognitive biases.
Michael, indeed, the very notion of “utils” is profoundly suspicious to me. Quite a lot of assumptions, often undetected, go into quantification of what is or is not good/useful.
In another comment you mention that taxes are a far better way to redistribute resources than charity, but I don't see why the two need to be exclusive, and giving to charity seems to be considered good by most moral theories.
Lorenzo, the virtuousness of an action depends on one’s intentions, not on the consequences. Because the first is up to us, the latter is not. So I can’t answer your question, only individual agents can, based on their own circumstances.
Regarding charity vs taxes, the problem is structural: taxes are the result of a common agreement that we reach as a society that we all chip in, in proportion to our wealth, to help the common good. Charity is entirely optional and arbitrary, and it reinforces the very same emphasis on wealth that, arguably, is at the root of many of society’s problems.
The fact that most moral theories arrive at the conclusion that charity is good is neither here nor there. This isn’t a majoritarian argument. It may simply be because most moral theories take the system as structurally fixed and don’t aim at changing it.
> the virtuousness of an action depends on one’s intentions, not on the consequences
Donors intentions are almost universally something similar to "help improve the lives of others", which seems to me to be virtuous. Would you say that valuing others is not something good according to stoicism?
> Regarding charity vs taxes, the problem is structural: taxes are the result of a common agreement that we reach as a society that we all chip in, in proportion to our wealth, to help the common good. Charity is entirely optional and arbitrary, and it reinforces the very same emphasis on wealth that, arguably, is at the root of many of society’s problems.
I still don't understand why giving to charity would undermine or discourage taxes. By giving to charity (after paying my taxes) I reduce global wealth inequality, decreasing the emphasis on wealth accumulation and increasing the emphasis on helping others.
The intentions of most donors are good (though in some cases there may be reasons connected to tax breaks and/or virtue signaling). But if they don’t take into account the damage the whole concept of charity does by reinforcing the current system of inequality then they are not wise.
There is an inverse relationship between taxes and charitable donations: countries with the highest charitable donations (US) typically have lower tax brackets. Which is a system that inherently favors inequality. Taxes can be used for actual restructuring, charitable donations make us feel good about doing something but keep in place the system that generated inequality in the first place.
(I should add that I do regularly contribute to charities, but I’d rather see more systemic changes achieved through more progressive taxation.)
Thank you again for replying, and apologies for the long comment.
> But if they don’t take into account the damage the whole concept of charity does by reinforcing the current system of inequality then they are not wise.
I still do not understand why giving money to help others reinforces the system of inequality, instead of diminishing it. If I have a lot (in global terms) and give to those that have little (e.g. via https://www.givedirectly.org/poverty-relief/ ) it would seem to me that the system becomes less unequal, compared to me hoarding the money to myself.
> There is an inverse relationship between taxes and charitable donations: countries with the highest charitable donations (US) typically have lower tax brackets.
Of course I am not an economist, that is only a quick review, and there are many large confounders like healthcare, but in general the economic literature also doesn't seem to support that claim: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268120302304 , https://archive.is/uxJ39 . By default, I would expect higher taxes to lead to _more_ charitable donations as individuals could get higher deductions (like in the US), leading to a positive relationship between charitable donations and taxes.
Obviously a lack of correlation doesn't imply a lack of causation, but I really don't understand why one would expect an increase in charitable giving would cause a decrease in taxation. This is anecdotal, but literally none of the many people I know who give significantly to charity advocate for lower taxation, or vote for parties that would decrease taxes on the wealthiest.
> (I should add that I do regularly contribute to charities, but I’d rather see more systemic changes achieved through more progressive taxation.)
I really don't understand why we can't have both! I don't see how our contributions to charity undermine our efforts to promote more progressive taxation. If anything the opposite seems more likely to me, e.g. via donations to political entities that promote progressive taxation, or by empowering underrepresented individuals to a level where they can better advocate for their interests, or by normalizing positive values of impartiality and equality.
Lorenzo, thanks for the detailed response. You put out a lot of links and data, and it will take me a little bit to digest them. I did, however, look at them enough for some preliminary comments.
Giving money to charities reinforces the system of inequality because the percentage of one’s income that is given is a fraction of the level of taxation. Moreover, charities are usually in the business of putting bandaids on situations, not of changing the system itself. Only government can do that sort of large scale intervention.
My claim is that people give less to charity in countries where taxation is high because they understand their taxes to do the job of charitable donations. Only better and on a grander scale. This appears to be born by some of your data. I would compare only western democracies, because otherwise — as you point out — too many variables will confound the results. Notice that the US has by far the highest level of donations. This isn’t, I suggest, because Americans are inherently more generous than Europeans, but rather because Europeans trust their tax money to do the job.
This also means that comparing states within the US may not be meaningful, because the differences among states are small compared to the differences between nations. Nevertheless, I noticed in one of the articles you linked to that there is a sharp divide between “red” and “blue” states, with the former giving more than the latter. It’s possible that Republicans are more kind-hearted than Democrats, but I doubt it. The explanation may instead be that blue states usually have higher personal income taxes.
(Corporate taxation is a whole different thing, partly because it is much lower, partly because corporations donate in order to purchase good will from the public, which is part of the problem.)
Also, as far as I know, the US is again an exception in that it allows charitable donations to be deducted from personal income. European nations usually don’t do that, though they allow a small percentage of individual taxes to go to specific causes.
As you say, it’s complicated, and neither one of us is an economist. From a philosophical perspective I’d rather rely on taxes than donations because the former are more substantial, less arbitrary, democratic, and largely fair. The latter may be well intentioned, but they are often used as an excuse not to address root problems, and they give cover to billionaires who buy themselves good will while continuing to exploit people for their own gain.
Hi Massimo, apologies for the delay and thank you again for engaging.
I think the crux of our disagreement is that you would expect an increase in charitable giving to cause a decrease in taxation. If I understand correctly, you expect that if you donated an extra $1,000 to the poorest people in Uganda via e.g. GiveDirectly, this will cause more than $1,000 in reduced taxation in the US, because the country will expect that donations take care of poverty so taxes are needed less. Am I understanding correctly?
On some claims:
> Giving money to charities reinforces the system of inequality because the percentage of one’s income that is given is a fraction of the level of taxation. Moreover, charities are usually in the business of putting bandaids on situations, not of changing the system itself. Only government can do that sort of large scale intervention.
Charity is something that is done on top of taxation, not instead of it, the same way that bandaids are great and don't replace systemic change.
> My claim is that people give less to charity in countries where taxation is high because they understand their taxes to do the job of charitable donations. Only better and on a grander scale. This appears to be born by some of your data.
I disagree with that claim, I don't think it's born by the data. It really seems that donation rates are much more dependent on religion and tax benefits. As a simple example, Italy has much more charitable giving than Germany, despite having higher taxes.
But even if higher taxation did cause fewer donations, this wouldn't imply that donating more to effective charities causes a decrease in taxation.
> Also, as far as I know, the US is again an exception in that it allows charitable donations to be deducted from personal income. European nations usually don’t do that, though they allow a small percentage of individual taxes to go to specific causes.
That is again an empirical claim that is not consistent with the data: Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, Poland all offer very significant deductions (sometimes more than the US). The exceptions as far as I know are countries like Sweden, Norway and Estonia, which limit the total tax reduction at around USD 600-1200/year (still not insignificant)
> As you say, it’s complicated, and neither one of us is an economist. From a philosophical perspective I’d rather rely on taxes than donations because the former are more substantial, less arbitrary, democratic, and largely fair.
My claim is that you don't have to choose, and there is no reason to believe increasing donations to effective charities will not cause a decrease in taxation. If nothing else, the vast majority of Government budget is spent nationally. Americans believe that 25% of the federal budget goes to foreign aid ( https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-every-american-should-know-about-u-s-foreign-aid/ ), but in reality it's less than 1%. If you donate to the poorest people globally there is going to be relatively little overlap with taxes (which instead pay for healthcare, public infrastructure, education, military, ...)
> The latter may be well intentioned, but they are often used as an excuse not to address root problems, and they give cover to billionaires who buy themselves good will while continuing to exploit people for their own gain.
Just noting that the billionaires who donate more to charity promote parties and policies that would increase taxation, and the billionaires that give less to charity promote parties and policies that would decrease taxation (compare Bill Gates to Elon Musk)
Thanks for the article. I was hoping you would begin a discussion along these lines. I was very enamored with Peter Singer's approach a few years back. As you point out, there are some very unobjectionable parts. But those apply mostly to the basic idea that determining where to give should rest on a series of criteria, not just the "moral score" of the activity. This includes things like how effective would a particular charity be if it received all the money it asked for (could it be scaled up while maintaining effectiveness). However, one area that doesn't seem to be addressed is whether charity as such is the best way forward. One criticism of charity is that it does not address the major structural issues that prevent the expansion of human flourishing, and in some ways functions as an ideological cover for maintaining a system of inequality. I hope these thoughts aren't too rambling!
Glenn, I completely agree. I do mention, perhaps too quickly, that EA suffers from the fact that it works within the system rather than trying to address its structural problems.
As a European, I think taxes are a far better way to redistribute resources than charity, and I agree that charity provides cover for rich people to continue exploiting others. The robber barons of the 19th century are mostly remembered for their charitable contributions (e.g., Carnegie Hall, Rockefeller University). But they were *robber* barons nevertheless.
Good read! I think I basically have the same thoughts as you. I like some aspects of the EA Movement (finding effective charities to donate to) and dislike other aspects (overly close to questionable wealthy folk, the long-termism can get a little absurd sometimes, etc.) I’m not entirely against the idea of earning more and then donating more, but at the same time I’m not sure if this is something to “strive” for vs more of just a good idea if you end up wealthy (you have to consider your natural talents/desires).
As for the EA Philosophy, I have to agree that insofar as it’s based on utilitarianism, it runs into all sorts of issues you’ve described. You can’t have an ethics that somehow computes utils (or whatever fancy new word they came up for that) and then base your life’s actions on that. You’d basically go insane. Virtue ethical approaches are more grounded, reasonable, and match up with our intuition better.
That said I do think utilitarian philosophy can be useful up to a point in broader political issues. I probably don’t really care about whether “taxing the rich more is morally wrong/right”, but I just want to tax them more so we can fund more programs and improve more lives! I think that is a somewhat utilitarian way of thinking, so I’m not sure if there’s a direct way to incorporate that into virtue ethics or if it’s eclectic.
Matthew, I generally agree with your comments. I do think we should strive to donate to charities in a more effective way (insofar as we can tell), but I don’t think utilitarianism is a sound base for an ethical philosophy.
For any ethical framework, it is never a good sign when your thought experiments can be the premise of a dystopian/postapocalyptic sci-fi novel. EA and utilitarianism unfortunately fall into nightmare scenarios very early and very fast. 🤔
I think that the notion of ‘effective’ altruism isn’t acceptable.
Maybe not, but why, exactly?
In my sophomore year at NYU studying humanities, I had a prof. named Sidney Offit. He was a Zionist, and featured TV commentator on WNEW-TV back in the 70's and 80's. It was a fun class. Posing hypotheticals and gauging student comments aloud. The class was an elective on "Public Opinion in America." He posed the question, "Would you see every artwork in the world destroyed, or shoot a homeless man in the head?" I thought, well, man created the art, and that we could be undercutting ourselves if we killed the man. Where's the appreciation? So for me, all art work must go. Unfortunately, and surprisingly, I was alone in my opinion! 😬 You'd think a liberal institution like NYU would appreciate my opinion. I sneered at and asked, "How could you destroy the world's art for burden to society? They even mention great works! 😄 I replied, "I can cannot determine the value of a life." It went unresolved and Sid was grinning with his trademark bowtie and blazer, "How about better 'Red' than dead?" 😂
(Just Googled him. Just turned 96 and still wearing a bowtie! 😊👍)
Interesting. Just learned Offit was Vonnegut's best friend and editor. He notes Vonnegut's "Special Message" in an interview:
"The Dresden atrocity, tremendously expensive and meticulously planned, was so meaningless, finally, that only one person on the entire planet got any benefit from it. I am that person. I wrote this book, which earned a lot of money for me and made my reputation such as it is. One way or another, I got two or three dollars for every person killed. Some business I'm in." - Kurt Vonnegut, Special Message, Franklin Library Edition, Slaughterhouse-Five. 😬
Mike, yeah, that’s one of the reason I find modern moral philosophy to be misguided. It’s all based on increasingly unlikely or downright absurd “dilemmas,” like the infamous trolly ones, which seem designed solely to get to a “gotcha!” moment. Vonnegut was a great writer and a better human being than most.
Excellent article, thank you so much. I am reading Peter Singer assays on “ethics in the real world” and find lots of good wisdom in there. I could also cut him a slack for being surrounded by repugnant people (on top of the repugnant conclusion), since Seneca was as well, although in very different circumstances and with different aims, and yet I find Seneca so enlightening. But I have major problems with EA. First, it reduces altruism to a financial proposition. Make as much money as you do, sacrifice people and humiliate them if need be, and then give to people in the world. This reduction to a financial proposition (money is as green in Kenya as in the US and more help can be done in Kenya than in the US for the same amount) neglects the benefits of non financial acts, that have much better effect when local. Staying with a sick person, consoling, helping a neighbor, taking care of somebody’s kid when the parents are ill, supporting your spouse or relatives in time of crises. Acts-based ethics are not only financial. Second, this financial emphasis lead to horrible distortions. Would MacAskill save the Mona Lisa if the child drowning was his own? To give to charity for whatever future use? Does the potential for a future benefit trumps the actual benefit? And for the process of overpopulate the world in the expectation of a new Einstein, we should beware of the new Hitler, no? Sorry for the long message but great posts cause reflection. I like Singer, and would agree that is a good tool for some delineated tasks (find charity), but outside of that, i embrace the name and walk away from the method.
Marcelo, exactly. Those are some of the very same points that bother me about EA.
Massimo, I’ve long been a fan (I used to regularly attend your meetups at Society for Ethical Culture when I lived in New York) and I thoroughly enjoyed the book you edited called “How to live a good life,” which presented 15 different perspectives/philosophies on how to answer the title question. Given that one of the essays was dedicated to Effective Altruism, it left the impression that, though you wouldn’t endorse the full program (you wrote the essay on Stoicism, after all), you did find enough of its ideas worthy enough for consideration, at least insofar as one is working out their own philosophy of life.
This is where I land. Is the dominant ethical framework behind EA (consequentialism) logically sound? No, but neither is virtue ethics. Neither is, well, any ethical framework, but we needn’t set the bar so high. In my view, what’s important is that both consequentialism and virtue ethics make valuable contributions to the question of how we should live our lives. I’d argue we don’t need to lose sleep over taking any of them to their logical extremes because that’s never going to happen anyway. Hopefully I’m not raising your ‘No True Scotsman’ hairs by mentioning Stoicism and EA in the same breath, but they’ve both lent valuable insights to how I launch the arrow.
I share your critique that, to put it slightly differently, the existence of charity is itself proof that the underlying system is deeply flawed. Indeed, if it were working well, there wouldn’t be any need for charity (at least not on the scale at which it exists today). However, I don’t think this fact is sufficient to then conclude that neither I nor other privileged (i.e. not rich, but middle-income members of high-income nations) individuals should not give to charity or that we should disregard the whole enterprise. (To be fair, you didn’t outright say this, and indeed you mentioned you yourself give to charities you think are plausibly good, but the overall effect of your post’s charity skepticism could well come off as a prescription for what people should, or in this case, should not do. And this worries me. More on this soon.)
I think it’s important to distinguish between descriptive claims about the whole and prescriptive claims for individuals. On the whole, it’s unfortunate we need to have charity, but that’s the world we currently inhabit. I’m sure you’ve seen ads from nonprofits saying “take my job away.” And surely, the aim of The Against Malaria Foundation is to one day close its doors. Similarly, environmentalists are sometimes derided as hypocrites for flying in planes, but they too have to live in the world they’re trying to change. True, it would be better to wave a wand and have progressive taxation in the US (where I live), but while I continue to advocate for that, I also focus on what’s more within my control, and that’s charitable donations to effective charities, at 10% of my income. And doing so does not preclude one also maintaining a Stoic practice, volunteering locally, doing direct work, and voting.
I worry that the (otherwise very healthy) conversation about charity skepticism more broadly and the more narrow critiques of how EA in particular thinks about charity ultimately end up convincing people not to give anything. That would be a real shame. Especially if the reasons for quitting are ultimately due to unrealistic standards or the inability to live with the discomforts of ambiguity.
One thing I like about EA is it itself sprung out of charity skepticism and it ultimately worked to provide surer bets on where charity can do a ton of good, particularly in terms of global health and wellbeing.. And then of course it evolved and began to tackle other noble pursuits. Are there trade-offs between animal welfare and human welfare? Do we have an obligation to people alive 1000 years from now? Can you really use units like QALY as an imperfect but useful measure to compare charities? I don’t see these questions as hits against EA. These conversations are the lifeblood of EA. Did WIll MacAskill really advocate for taking the painting over the child in the burning building? In a way, who cares? EA is not a church and Will is not its priest. It’s not a monolith, and as movements go, I can’t think of another with greater viewpoint diversity than EA.
Finally, you mentioned that EA has had unfortunate subscribers -- people like SBF and Elon Musk. But this isn’t a reason to discard the underlying philosophy -- after all, Stoicism counts Jeff Bezos among its ranks, along with plenty of tech bros. And on the concept of thought experiments -- Epictetus likened the death of a child to losing one’s favorite cup. The point is it’s not hard to cherry pick the eye raising stuff in any body of literature. What matters is if the sensational bits are indicative of something rotten within. In the case of both EA and Stoicism, assuredly no. And indeed I don’t think these lines of argument follow in the spirit of steelmanning.
Perhaps I’m a walking contradiction or maybe I’m just hedging my bets, but I’m someone who has been heavily influenced by both Stoicism and EA. I see each of their strengths and limitations and, yes, some inherent tension between, but I have fairly high confidence that how I’m living my life and the mark I’m able to leave on the world is much greater thanks to their positive influences.
Bobby, thanks for the kind words and for your thoughtful comments. Let me add some reflections.
> Is the dominant ethical framework behind EA (consequentialism) logically sound? No, but neither is virtue ethics <
I guess we’ll have to disagree here. I find the conceptual framework behind virtue ethics to be very sound, in agreement with modern understanding of how “ethics” evolved, both biologically and culturally. I think moral philosophy took two sharp wrong turns after the Enlightenment, first with Kant’s deontology then with Bentham/Mill utilitarianism-consequentialism. I’ve written about this in the past, and I may return to it in the future, because it’s an important discussion.
> Stoicism and EA in the same breath, but they’ve both lent valuable insights to how I launch the arrow <
If that combination works for you, by all means, of course. But I find the tension between the two approaches to lead to irreconcilable differences.
> I share your critique that, to put it slightly differently, the existence of charity is itself proof that the underlying system is deeply flawed <
Yes, but let me be clear about this point, as other commenters have also attributed to me opinions that I do not hold. (I’m sure it’s my fault for not having expressed myself clearly.) While I do think that charity is an indication of systemic problems, and I do think the systemic problems should take priority, I think charity does good and it is virtuous to engage in charitable acts. What I reject is EA’s specific approach to charity giving. The notion of hyper-quantification, for instance, which gives a veneer of science but risks leaving a number of imponderables unaccounted for because they cannot be quantified. Or the idea of longtermism, which I find absurd. Or organizations like 80000-hours, which are predicated on the notion that it’s okay to pursue careers that may be soul-destroying, and which reinforce the systemic problems, because then one can give more. And of course the fact that charity provides cover for billionaires who exploit others and exercise inordinate political influence outside the democratic process. So, it isn’t charity in itself I object to, it’s EA’s vision for and use of charity.
> I worry that the (otherwise very healthy) conversation about charity skepticism more broadly and the more narrow critiques of how EA in particular thinks about charity ultimately end up convincing people not to give anything. That would be a real shame <
Yes, it would be. But see my extended comment just above.
> after all, Stoicism counts Jeff Bezos among its ranks, along with plenty of tech bros <
I hear you, but there is a crucial difference: Jezos is not a Stoic (see: https://medium.com/lotus-fruit/nope-jeff-bezos-is-not-a-stoic-4a29c36a35c6), and neither are the bros crowd. And they have been called multiple times on it. Billionaire support, by contrast, has been baked into EA from the beginning, it is systemic and entrenched. It follows from the 80000-hours logic. So I do think there is a difference there.
> Epictetus likened the death of a child to losing one’s favorite cup <
That actually makes perfect sense if you believe in a providential universe. And modern Stoicism explicitly rejects some of the tenets of ancient Stoicism. Again, the child vs Picasso argument is baked into the very logic of EA. There is a difference.
> indeed I don’t think these lines of argument follow in the spirit of steelmanning <
I honestly don’t think my article presented EA as a strawman. I wasn’t being very original either, much of the criticism I compiled is common in discussions of EA.
> I have fairly high confidence that how I’m living my life and the mark I’m able to leave on the world is much greater thanks to their positive influences <
I’m sure that’s true. And, again, if that works for you, that’s good! But it doesn’t work for me, and — given the popularity of EA — I thought a bit of reasoned criticism would make a positive contribution to the discussion.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
I guess I should mention my mild phobia. There’s an aversion to too strong an identification with any one group (though I’m willing to be practical when speaking) and any one framework. The reasons, respectively, are the dangers of groupthink and the reality that “the world” is simply too complex to ever be fully captured by any single framework. It is this I had in mind when I questioned soundness, perhaps not the best word choice.
As a complete framework, I do not think consequentialism would ultimately yield the kind of world I’d want to live in. As a set of tools for thinking rigorously about very difficult questions (triaging how our limited resources are spent), I think it’s indispensable and I wouldn’t want to live in a world without it.
Skeptics are correct that one cannot perfectly compare what at times seem like apples and oranges, but I think they’re wrong to suggest that just because it’s difficult it means we cannot make any meaningful progress. And, to be sure, what one person may call consequentialism, others would simply call data-driven decision making. I do think my next $100 donation can go further with an organization like Give Directly, which facilitates unconditional cash transfers to the very poor, than to my local cat shelter, though I really love cats. Now, perhaps that one is too easy. But all it takes is admitting it’s possible to compare these two options and we’re beginning to sound utilitarian, basing our decisions (not solely) but primarily on the expected outcome of our actions. And if tomorrow we discover something better, we can dispassionately update and follow the data, not merely our passions. I think this ability to overcome simply giving to what personally moves us for what is less attractive but will plausibly do more good is a kind of superpower. The EA urging to give more and put a lot more thought on where to give is vital and especially healthy in response to a world (in the US at least) where the prevailing attitude is that good is good and all charity is the same, which is simply untrue.
Naturally, because I’m framework averse and hedge my bets (call me a skeptic!) I diversify not only my giving portfolio, but my “doing good” portfoilio, for indeed EA is not urging anyone to replace the business of cultivating one's character with signing a check.
I signed the Giving What We Can 10% pledge back in 2017 and I encourage others living in wealthy countries to do the same. I encourage you Massimo if you haven’t already. The pledge does not dictate where you give, simply that you do give to organizations you believe are most impactful. My family has primarily focused our 10% on recommendations from charity evaluators like Give Well, but beyond that we’ve also supported organizations like Democracy Now and other causes. The point is, the conversation doesn’t need to stall on “system change” vs “bandaids” (often a dubious distinction IMO), for one can diversify. Give Directly is a sure-fire bet to help improve the lives of the very poor today. And Democracy Now? That’s harder to quantify, but nevertheless it’s invaluable to have independent anti-corporate news organizations in the US that act with integrity. Quick aside: EA also places long uncertain bets with things like hits-based giving and worrying about existential risks.
But naturally the recipe for eudaimonia requires more than giving. So I also borrow from the tools of Stoicism (and philosophy more generally), without fully buying into its complete framework, because of the aforementioned aversion. (Perhaps disillusionment with Catholicism in my youth messed me up, but I digress :D) I think Stoicism is more useful in helping guide my day-to-day, ever mindful of the dichotomy of control, not being too quick to assent to fleeting thoughts, and accepting outcomes with equanimity, so long as I attempted to follow the cardinal virtues. I think it’s less useful in evaluating charities and I fear its insularity, for one can easily convince themselves they’re acting virtuously, especially when emphasis on outcomes is de-emphasized.
One final thought lest I ramble too much about my personal philosophy. In Stoicism, there’s the notion of the sage. No one actually believes real sages exist, but it helps to have something ideal by which to measure yourself, something to aspire to. I view the broad EA framework and Peter Singer’s hard argument for giving similarly. It can be extremely demanding and seemingly ask for the impossible, sussing out what role individuals, organizations, and movements can do to best allot our resources of time, attention and money into solving and/or ameliorating the world’s problems. Sure, the answers are not going to be perfect, but it’s right to shoot for the stars.
Thanks again for the discussion!
Bobby,
> There’s an aversion to too strong an identification with any one group <
I hear you, that’s why I consider myself a skeptic, not full fledged Stoic. Nevertheless, there is a danger in mixing and matching too many things. It paves the road to rationalization and/or incoherence.
> As a set of tools for thinking rigorously about very difficult questions (triaging how our limited resources are spent), I think it’s indispensable and I wouldn’t want to live in a world without it. <
Fair enough, I guess we’ll agree to differ here. I think both consequentualism and Kantian-style deontology were massively bad turns in moral philosophy.
> what one person may call consequentialism, others would simply call data-driven decision making <
Not at all the same thing. I’m in favor of data-driven decision making, though even that can be abused. I’m not in favor of consequentialism as a philosophy.
> all it takes is admitting it’s possible to compare these two options and we’re beginning to sound utilitarian <
As I mentioned several times in this discussion, it is a mistake to think that only consequentialists care about consequences. Virtue ethicists do too (though not so deontologists): https://thephilosophygarden.substack.com/p/virtue-ethics-rules-and-consequences
> EA is not urging anyone to replace the business of cultivating one's character with signing a check <
Perhaps not, but that seems to be a logical consequence of the approach. Indeed, EA’s insistence on concepts like “make the most money so you can donate” may be seen as a positive incentive to worsen our character.
> Giving What We Can 10% pledge <
Sounds good. But why 10? Why not 20, 30, 50? I think people can give far more than 10% and still live above poverty level. Aren’t they obliged to do so by consequentialist logic?
> Democracy Now? That’s harder to quantify, but nevertheless it’s invaluable to have independent anti-corporate news organizations <
I agree. And I do donate to a number of organizations like that. But how many “utils” are they worth? How do I weigh the importance of people starving right now somewhere in the world vs the long-term future of a relatively privileged American democracy?
> Perhaps disillusionment with Catholicism in my youth messed me up <
I’m also a recovering Catholic.
> In Stoicism, there’s the notion of the sage <
Thankfully abandoned by middle and late Stoics like Panaetius and Epictetus.
Cheers!
I think the concept of hubris might be relevant to this theme? Actually if you have time an article about the concept of Hubris and maybe Nemesis too from a Stoic perspective would be something I would love to read
Nicholas, good idea! I’ll keep it in mind.
Hi Massimo — thanks for writing up your thoughts on this, it was an interesting read! I have so much to say about so many parts of this — but I think your point about system change may be most important so I’ll try to stick to that.
First off, I definitely agree with you that what’s needed most is system change – we shouldn’t have the type of extreme global income inequality we currently see, and we can blame capitalism for at least a part of that inequality.
Where I disagree with you, though, is what this means in terms of individual action. I think there are at least two ways to think about changes to the world — there’s the view from above (ideally, what should happen?) and there’s the view from where we currently are (what can each of us do right now to help?)
Correct me if you disagree, but it doesn’t seem like there’s a lot each of us can do on an individual level to change the root causes of global wealth inequality. So we’re left with a choice of doing nothing because the system is flawed, or doing what we can (within the flawed system) to prevent needless suffering and death. In my opinion, the latter is clearly more in line with virtues of compassion and moral courage, and better for cultivating character as well. We shouldn’t ignore the suffering of those on the other side of the world just because their suffering is the result of a flawed system. And if we do find ways to engage in pushing for system change (which I think we should – it’s just unclear to me what exactly those are) that wouldn’t seem to exclude also improving lives in the here and now. (Imagine the analogy of a doctor whose patient is bleeding out from some sort of disease. That doctor can’t let the patient bleed out while they investigate the cause – they must both stop the bleeding and work to find/cure the cause.)
You mentioned that you think charitable giving contributes to the harmful systems at the root causes of global income inequality – and I have to say I don’t really understand this, and am also wondering how much you think this is the case, given it seems from another comment that you still regularly give to charities? I agree that some billionaires misuse charity as a way to “write off” harms (kind of like carbon offsetting) but I would characterise this as a misuse of charity rather than something intrinsic to it. I certainly don’t think ordinary people giving what they can to provide access to resources we’re lucky enough to already have in high income countries (clean water, safety from diseases like malaria, etc.) is contributing to any harmful system, any more so than other actions we take in our daily life. And I think what is overlooked here is the harm of not doing what we can to prevent this suffering.
(Also, I want to push back a tiny bit on the notion that charitable giving can’t or doesn’t get at system change at all. Many orgs are working on advocating for changes in policy at the government level that would affect the way the system functions – think factory farming, climate, etc.)
On your point about taxes being a better approach, I’m wondering if you could talk a bit more about why you see taxes as being outside of the system/not reinforcing the system. At least in the US, government is very much in the pocket of capitalists and billionaires – and this affects how taxes are spent. (The famous bank bailout in 2008 is just one example.) So as tax-payers, we don’t really have much agency over how our funds are spent, beyond trying to vote in the best choice in an (often) series of not-great choices. So it would seem to be that we’d have more agency in terms of making sure our money is acting in line with our virtues by choosing how it’s spent through strategic, high-impact donations.
(Btw, as might be evident from the number of times I've used the phrase, I work at Giving What We Can, but my views here are my own!)
Alana, thanks for the thoughtful comment. As you say, there is a lot going on here, and I’ve already written a long essay. Still, let me try to clear up my thinking in light of your objections.
> Correct me if you disagree, but it doesn’t seem like there’s a lot each of us can do on an individual level to change the root causes of global wealth inequality <
There isn’t a lot I can do as individual to cure malaria, or end poverty, or war. So that doesn’t strike me as tipping the balance either way.
> we’re left with a choice of doing nothing because the system is flawed, or doing what we can (within the flawed system) to prevent needless suffering and death <
I think that’s a false dichotomy. We *can* do something to change the system, which is why I give money to organizations that aim at that, including groups that fight for the defense of democracy, organizations that protect journalists, groups that fight corruption in politics, and so forth. Yes, I also donate to a small number of disaster relief organizations, but I consider those to be bandaids, not conducive to fundamental change. Moreover, there are other ways to be politically active, other than donating money and voting. For instance, I coordinate with like minded people to push state legislators to pass certain bills that I think are important. I at least occasionally participate in street protests, and of course I teach and write, which I do consider political (in the broad, Aristotelian sense) activities.
> We shouldn’t ignore the suffering of those on the other side of the world just because their suffering is the result of a flawed system <
I don’t, but I don’t see anything in EA that attacks the system itself. This may be the result of my limited readings on the subject, but others have raised exactly the same criticism.
> You mentioned that you think charitable giving contributes to the harmful systems at the root causes of global income inequality – and I have to say I don’t really understand this <
Take the EA concept that people should choose highly lucrative careers so that they make more money and can therefore donate more. Setting aside the alienation inherent in the approach, don’t you think that simply entrenches the system? Moreover, it gives those people cover: “yes, I’m a capitalist, but I donate…”
> I certainly don’t think ordinary people giving what they can to provide access to resources we’re lucky enough to already have in high income countries (clean water, safety from diseases like malaria, etc.) is contributing to any harmful system, any more so than other actions we take in our daily life <
I disagree. And yes, a lot of actions we take in daily life also contribute to entrenching the system. Without going nuts, I pay attention to what I buy, from whom, and how much, for instance.
> At least in the US, government is very much in the pocket of capitalists and billionaires – and this affects how taxes are spent <
Indeed, which is why I mentioned above that I try to engage in a range of political activities, including giving money to anti-corruption organizations. I’m not convinced that EA’s quantitative approach (“utils”?) would weigh those correctly, because it’s next to impossible to quantify the effect of corruption, or of the continuation of a given system.
> as tax-payers, we don’t really have much agency over how our funds are spent <
While strictly true, as I said before, that’s the case for any other issue as well. And it becomes an easy excuse: “oh well, I can’t change the system, so I might as well donate a few bucks to X charity, that way my conscience is clear.” Okay, that may have been a bit uncharitable on my part, but you see what I mean.
And then there is the issue of rich people and corporations, who literally buy our good will with relatively paltry donations (compared to the wealth), thus perpetuating the very same system that created a lot of our problems in the first place.
Thanks for engaging!
Hi Massimo,
Wow, that was a very quick reply! Thanks for engaging!
> There isn’t a lot I can do as an individual to cure malaria, or end poverty, or war. So that doesn’t strike me as tipping the balance either way.
But there’s a lot you can do as an individual to prevent people from dying from malaria and other diseases that affect the world’s poorest. $7 donated to The Malaria Consortium provides a full course of preventative medicine for one child, which is incredibly effective at preventing that child from contracting malaria, which kills around 600,000 people per year.
> I think that’s a false dichotomy. We *can* do something to change the system, which is why I …
Yes, agreed – sloppy language on my part. We can and should take actions to try to influence the system, but I still think things like the root causes of global income inequality are pretty difficult to isolate and solve – while I certainly think there is value in defending democracy, protecting journalists, fighting political corruption, voting, passing legislation, and protesting (and have engaged in similar activities myself!) I’m sceptical that this is enough to redress the huge imbalance in access to resources that exists in the world, as this is an incredibly complex problem. Even if you could pass some incredible legislation, what would it say? What’s the theory of change from passing legislation and defending democracy in one’s own country to a world where nobody has to die of preventable disease?
More importantly, though, I think we can both agree that if we are able to influence the system in these ways, it will most certainly take time. While that time is passing, people are needlessly dying, and if we can prevent even some of those deaths by giving a fraction of our resources to proven interventions in global health, that seems like a moral thing to do. I see charitable giving as complementary to the activities you mentioned, and not in opposition to it!
> don’t see anything in EA that attacks the system itself. This may be the result of my limited readings on the subject, but others have raised exactly the same criticism.
It’s true that this is one of the most common criticisms of EA. I think it has a grain of truth, but is also based on a limited understanding (and on criticism begetting criticism, as opinions are influenced heavily by others’ thoughts on the topic.) There are several EA-aligned organisations that are working on influencing policy – these include LEEP, CATF, most of Giving Green’s recommended charities, The Humane League, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, and the Good Food Institute, to name a few that come to mind off the top of my head.
> Take the EA concept that people should choose highly lucrative careers so that they make more money and can therefore donate more. Setting aside the alienation inherent in the approach, don’t you think that simply entrenches the system? Moreover, it gives those people cover: “yes, I’m a capitalist, but I donate…”
I was hoping you would bring this up, as I didn’t have room to address it in my first comment! I’ve actually written in detail about this concern here: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/misconceptions-and-concerns-about-effective-altruism-and-charity-evaluation#5-effective-altruism-is-about-making-money-and-donating-it-which-reinforces-oppressive-structures (You might find some of the other misconceptions & concerns on that page interesting as well.) I will add to what I’ve written in the article above that even if some EAs decide to enter lucrative careers so that they have more to donate (and in my view, this is far from being a core part of EA) I don’t see this as necessarily entrenching the system. There are a range of highly lucrative careers — including doctor, programmer, etc. — that do no greater harm than many other professions. And for the ones that arguably do, or at least explicitly reinforce capitalism – banker, investor, etc – the number of these jobs doesn’t go up with greater interest in them. This means that it’s a choice of having bankers who don’t also donate or bankers who do also donate and I’d argue the latter is better.
>yes, a lot of actions we take in daily life also contribute to entrenching the system. Without going nuts, I pay attention to what I buy, from whom, and how much, for instance.
I do too. But I also recognise that when I heat my house, I’m contributing to emissions as well as the poor health of people who live in sacrifice zones, when I eat in a restaurant, I could be enabling the terrible labor practices of the large distributor the restaurant buys its food from, etc. If you buy any clothes that aren’t secondhand, you’re very likely enabling oppressive sweatshops. (And I do try to buy all of my clothes secondhand for this reason, btw.) Additionally, even seemingly virtuous actions that mitigate one harm could entrench another – for example, fighting for better environmental standards for buildings could make housing affordability worse and vice versa.
I think it's definitely important to think about potential harm, but I also think it's something that happens in all aspects of life, not just charity. And for some reason, I don't often hear these concerns get brought up beyond the charity sector, which I think is an oversight.
>While strictly true, as I said before, [not having agency over how funds are spent] is the case for any other issue as well.
A bit confused here. I think it’s pretty clear that I have far more agency over the spending of my donations than my taxes, given with the former I can choose the interventions I want to support. Do you disagree?
>And then there is the issue of rich people and corporations, who literally buy our good will with relatively paltry donations (compared to the wealth), thus perpetuating the very same system that created a lot of our problems in the first place.
As mentioned in my original comment, I see providing cover to billionaires as a misuse of charity, not something intrinsic to it or that should affect how everyday people approach giving.
>And it becomes an easy excuse: “oh well, I can’t change the system, so I might as well donate a few bucks to X charity, that way my conscience is clear.” Okay, that may have been a bit uncharitable on my part, but you see what I mean.
Interestingly, I think we’re concerned about the same thing, here – using one type of action as a justification for not doing another. I still think the best way to improve the world is to engage both in efforts to change the system and in efforts to alleviate preventable suffering now — recall the doctor analogy in my original comment.
Alana,
> But there’s a lot you can do as an individual to prevent people from dying from malaria and other diseases that affect the world’s poorest <
But there is a lot I can do about an almost infinite amount of problems. And, unlike EA, I simply don’t think there is a uniquely objective way to quantify what my priorities should be. So I make decisions based on a number of criteria, some of which are personal choices that could reasonably be questioned or defended. The world is too complicated for EA’s simplistic approach, in my opinion. And I’m okay with the idea that I might be making some “sub-optimal” choices, from time to time.
> I still think things like the root causes of global income inequality are pretty difficult to isolate and solve <
So are the root causes of almost everything else. And in fact, I’m not that confident that you are correct here. I think we have a pretty good idea of what sort of systemic problems we face. We just don’t want to face them, and giving to charities (again, I do it too!) is a perfect way to shield our conscience.
> I think we can both agree that if we are able to influence the system in these ways, it will most certainly take time <
Sure, call it a more sensible type of “longtermism.” Why are we so obsessed with getting results here and now? That strikes me as myopic, or perhaps even self-serving, something to feed our ego and convince us that we are good people after all.
> I see charitable giving as complementary to the activities you mentioned, and not in opposition to it <
As I pointed out in another thread under this post, I don’t have a problem with charity per se, I have a problem with EA’s way of looking at charity. Let’s not confuse the two: my arguments are anti-EA, not anti-charity.
> There are several EA-aligned organisations that are working on influencing policy <
I’m sure there are. But are they aligned with EA simply in the sense that they want to make sure to be effective, or are they aligned with EA’s overall philosophy? How do they calculate their “utils,” are they engaged in longtermism? Do they tell people to engage in soul-wrenching careers so they can make more money to donate?
> even if some EAs decide to enter lucrative careers so that they have more to donate (and in my view, this is far from being a core part of EA) I don’t see this as necessarily entrenching the system <
I guess we’re going to disagree on this one. Setting aside that even being a doctor shouldn’t be a highly lucrative career in the first place (I’m with John Rawls on this one), Wall Street and Silicon Valley are far more lucrative, and far more likely to destroy the world.
> I think it's definitely important to think about potential harm, but I also think it's something that happens in all aspects of life, not just charity. And for some reason, I don't often hear these concerns get brought up beyond the charity sector, which I think is an oversight <
I do hear it, a lot. And at any rate, what’s your suggestion here?
> I think it’s pretty clear that I have far more agency over the spending of my donations than my taxes, given with the former I can choose the interventions I want to support <
You neglect that charities are bandaids that entrench the system. You do have more agency there, but that agency is not in a position to effect significant change.
> I see providing cover to billionaires as a misuse of charity, not something intrinsic to it or that should affect how everyday people approach giving <
Again, agree to disagree. I see it as stemming directly from EA’s logic.
> I still think the best way to improve the world is to engage both in efforts to change the system and in efforts to alleviate preventable suffering now <
Agreed. Again, my argument is not that we shouldn’t donate, it’s that we shouldn’t embrace EA as a philosophy.
Thanks for the reply! I have more to say on this perceived system change vs charity dichotomy (I don't think it's a justifiable dichotomy) but will leave it at this for the sake of both of our time:
My overall feeling after reading your replies is that I'd encourage you to read a bit more broadly about EA as well as take a look at the page I linked to earlier, which addresses many of these concerns/attempts to clarify aspects of them that are often misunderstood due to an imbalance of media attention as well as (like I said before) criticisms begetting more criticisms. Here's the link again: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/misconceptions-and-concerns-about-effective-altruism-and-charity-evaluation
As someone who has been involved in EA since 2016 and works full time at an EA-aligned organisation, I can say that my impression of EA is not at all what you quote above. And while I think it's certainly important to remind people that donating isn't a way to get off the hook for doing anything else, I don't think that's what EA is advocating. Rather, it's opening up an important conversation about the power we all have to effect change in the world and how to action that power.
Alana, thanks for engaging. I don’t think the impression I gave of EA is misleading. Working within an EA organization certainly gives you a different perspective, but not necessarily a better one. I also wanted to be clear that I am not against charitable donations, I’m against the way EA thinks about charitable donations. Cheers!
I share your concerns Massimo, so I enjoyed your reflections. EA has always struck me as being, paradoxically, both overly simplistic and overly complicated in its approach, in addition to its many other problems.
Peter, that’s a good way to put it!
1. I give a small amount to help Ukraine win. I know Russians will die, though I like Russians. Though there are moral questions, I will continue to contribute to Ukraine.
2. On the lighter side, please buy German made suites.
I'm more in the utilitarian camp, but I share most of your concerns about EA.
Focusing on what's measurable ends up missing a lot of the hard-to-measure problems. What are the circumstances in the poor countries that's keeping them from, for example, getting rid of parasites? How do you get economic development and good governance in these countries so that this isn't a problem that requires an outside charity to solve? There's definitely people thinking hard about these kinds of problems within and adjacent to EA, but what often gets presented is the simplistic picture of "this project saves X lives at $Y so it's more effective than this other project".
Satoru, exactly. Again, I’m all in favor of quantifying things if such practice improves things. But an obsession with quantification easily leads misguided priorities.
I kinda like Less Wrong!
But I'm also semi-nuts, so touché, good sir.
😆 I know you do, but you don’t strike me as anywhere near as Bayesian-infatuated and trans-humanist minded as Eliezer Yudkowsky!
I’d teach the saved child to paint like Picasso.
Thanks for this article. I didn’t understand what EA was several years ago when I was on the board of directors of a music school. The executive director wanted our help ‘quantifying’ what good our charitable donations did for our students. I drew a blank at first, thinking that the worth of kids learning to make music spoke for itself. No-o-o-o, I was told. The Millennials need facts and figures before they'll double-tap their wallet app. It felt like a fool’s errand to count noses and spin up dollar-per-student/lesson stats and if I’d save Mozart or a first-year violinist. Still, we did it. Donations kept flowing in - not unlike the sun always returning to Chinese citizens because they banged gongs during each and every eclipse.
Now I understand what was behind the push to nail a cloud to the wall. I appreciate the enlightenment.
David, I’m all in favor of data-driven and evidence-based approaches. But as Aristotle said, it is unwise to pretend more precision than the subject matter allows. Some people think that if you can put a number on something you’ve done something valuable, and in the process they end up ignoring things that are hard to quantify.
Thank you so much for this review. I had the similar concerns about EA and some of their practices. Evaluating the effectiveness of charities and using Bayesian reasoning are very helpful practices. On the other hand, having only one metric for evaluating all ethical actions in a very complex world doesn't make much sense to me. I like the idea of the Hierocles's circle of concerns to organize priorities of ethical action. Also, virtue ethics using historical examples of people's character and actions to guide our behavior is a helpful guide. Role ethics and mentorship is an ethical community are also more helpful than calculating arbitrary utils that magically agree with your cognitive biases.
Michael, indeed, the very notion of “utils” is profoundly suspicious to me. Quite a lot of assumptions, often undetected, go into quantification of what is or is not good/useful.
I would be curious to hear your take on whether it's virtuous to give 10% or more of your income to charities that you consider most effective (see https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/effective-altruism-as-a-tower-of )
In another comment you mention that taxes are a far better way to redistribute resources than charity, but I don't see why the two need to be exclusive, and giving to charity seems to be considered good by most moral theories.
( Disclaimer: I currently work as a software developer at https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/ , but I'm writing only as myself )
Lorenzo, the virtuousness of an action depends on one’s intentions, not on the consequences. Because the first is up to us, the latter is not. So I can’t answer your question, only individual agents can, based on their own circumstances.
Regarding charity vs taxes, the problem is structural: taxes are the result of a common agreement that we reach as a society that we all chip in, in proportion to our wealth, to help the common good. Charity is entirely optional and arbitrary, and it reinforces the very same emphasis on wealth that, arguably, is at the root of many of society’s problems.
The fact that most moral theories arrive at the conclusion that charity is good is neither here nor there. This isn’t a majoritarian argument. It may simply be because most moral theories take the system as structurally fixed and don’t aim at changing it.
Thank you for the quick reply.
> the virtuousness of an action depends on one’s intentions, not on the consequences
Donors intentions are almost universally something similar to "help improve the lives of others", which seems to me to be virtuous. Would you say that valuing others is not something good according to stoicism?
> Regarding charity vs taxes, the problem is structural: taxes are the result of a common agreement that we reach as a society that we all chip in, in proportion to our wealth, to help the common good. Charity is entirely optional and arbitrary, and it reinforces the very same emphasis on wealth that, arguably, is at the root of many of society’s problems.
I still don't understand why giving to charity would undermine or discourage taxes. By giving to charity (after paying my taxes) I reduce global wealth inequality, decreasing the emphasis on wealth accumulation and increasing the emphasis on helping others.
Rutger Bregman became famous for advocating for higher taxes at the World Economic Forum ( https://youtu.be/9odkjbkwvWs?feature=shared&t=24 ) but also gives to charity. Many people who give to charity also vote for parties that propose more progressive taxation, I don't think the two things are in opposition but if anything they encourage each other. (See e.g. "Effective altruism's billionaires aren't taxed enough. But they're trying." https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/tqJG3omjWrdaLcSHk/effective-altruism-s-billionaires-aren-t-taxed-enough-but )
The intentions of most donors are good (though in some cases there may be reasons connected to tax breaks and/or virtue signaling). But if they don’t take into account the damage the whole concept of charity does by reinforcing the current system of inequality then they are not wise.
There is an inverse relationship between taxes and charitable donations: countries with the highest charitable donations (US) typically have lower tax brackets. Which is a system that inherently favors inequality. Taxes can be used for actual restructuring, charitable donations make us feel good about doing something but keep in place the system that generated inequality in the first place.
(I should add that I do regularly contribute to charities, but I’d rather see more systemic changes achieved through more progressive taxation.)
Thank you again for replying, and apologies for the long comment.
> But if they don’t take into account the damage the whole concept of charity does by reinforcing the current system of inequality then they are not wise.
I still do not understand why giving money to help others reinforces the system of inequality, instead of diminishing it. If I have a lot (in global terms) and give to those that have little (e.g. via https://www.givedirectly.org/poverty-relief/ ) it would seem to me that the system becomes less unequal, compared to me hoarding the money to myself.
> There is an inverse relationship between taxes and charitable donations: countries with the highest charitable donations (US) typically have lower tax brackets.
This is an empirical claim that can be easily verified, what data is this based on? From some quick research I don't find a meaningful relationship between charitable donations and tax rates: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Baul9EzVQG8PPaDzCAZprcLkFQgt3hoW_YVjuHumLtU/edit?gid=1011505906#gid=1011505906&range=A1
Of course I am not an economist, that is only a quick review, and there are many large confounders like healthcare, but in general the economic literature also doesn't seem to support that claim: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268120302304 , https://archive.is/uxJ39 . By default, I would expect higher taxes to lead to _more_ charitable donations as individuals could get higher deductions (like in the US), leading to a positive relationship between charitable donations and taxes.
Looking just at states in the US, it doesn't seem to me that there's an inverse relationship between taxes and charitable donations ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_income_tax , https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics-on-u-s-generosity/ ). But of course you have more context on the US, so I would be happy to be corrected on this.
Obviously a lack of correlation doesn't imply a lack of causation, but I really don't understand why one would expect an increase in charitable giving would cause a decrease in taxation. This is anecdotal, but literally none of the many people I know who give significantly to charity advocate for lower taxation, or vote for parties that would decrease taxes on the wealthiest.
> (I should add that I do regularly contribute to charities, but I’d rather see more systemic changes achieved through more progressive taxation.)
I really don't understand why we can't have both! I don't see how our contributions to charity undermine our efforts to promote more progressive taxation. If anything the opposite seems more likely to me, e.g. via donations to political entities that promote progressive taxation, or by empowering underrepresented individuals to a level where they can better advocate for their interests, or by normalizing positive values of impartiality and equality.
Lorenzo, thanks for the detailed response. You put out a lot of links and data, and it will take me a little bit to digest them. I did, however, look at them enough for some preliminary comments.
Giving money to charities reinforces the system of inequality because the percentage of one’s income that is given is a fraction of the level of taxation. Moreover, charities are usually in the business of putting bandaids on situations, not of changing the system itself. Only government can do that sort of large scale intervention.
My claim is that people give less to charity in countries where taxation is high because they understand their taxes to do the job of charitable donations. Only better and on a grander scale. This appears to be born by some of your data. I would compare only western democracies, because otherwise — as you point out — too many variables will confound the results. Notice that the US has by far the highest level of donations. This isn’t, I suggest, because Americans are inherently more generous than Europeans, but rather because Europeans trust their tax money to do the job.
This also means that comparing states within the US may not be meaningful, because the differences among states are small compared to the differences between nations. Nevertheless, I noticed in one of the articles you linked to that there is a sharp divide between “red” and “blue” states, with the former giving more than the latter. It’s possible that Republicans are more kind-hearted than Democrats, but I doubt it. The explanation may instead be that blue states usually have higher personal income taxes.
(Corporate taxation is a whole different thing, partly because it is much lower, partly because corporations donate in order to purchase good will from the public, which is part of the problem.)
Also, as far as I know, the US is again an exception in that it allows charitable donations to be deducted from personal income. European nations usually don’t do that, though they allow a small percentage of individual taxes to go to specific causes.
As you say, it’s complicated, and neither one of us is an economist. From a philosophical perspective I’d rather rely on taxes than donations because the former are more substantial, less arbitrary, democratic, and largely fair. The latter may be well intentioned, but they are often used as an excuse not to address root problems, and they give cover to billionaires who buy themselves good will while continuing to exploit people for their own gain.
Hi Massimo, apologies for the delay and thank you again for engaging.
I think the crux of our disagreement is that you would expect an increase in charitable giving to cause a decrease in taxation. If I understand correctly, you expect that if you donated an extra $1,000 to the poorest people in Uganda via e.g. GiveDirectly, this will cause more than $1,000 in reduced taxation in the US, because the country will expect that donations take care of poverty so taxes are needed less. Am I understanding correctly?
On some claims:
> Giving money to charities reinforces the system of inequality because the percentage of one’s income that is given is a fraction of the level of taxation. Moreover, charities are usually in the business of putting bandaids on situations, not of changing the system itself. Only government can do that sort of large scale intervention.
Charity is something that is done on top of taxation, not instead of it, the same way that bandaids are great and don't replace systemic change.
> My claim is that people give less to charity in countries where taxation is high because they understand their taxes to do the job of charitable donations. Only better and on a grander scale. This appears to be born by some of your data.
I disagree with that claim, I don't think it's born by the data. It really seems that donation rates are much more dependent on religion and tax benefits. As a simple example, Italy has much more charitable giving than Germany, despite having higher taxes.
But even if higher taxation did cause fewer donations, this wouldn't imply that donating more to effective charities causes a decrease in taxation.
> Also, as far as I know, the US is again an exception in that it allows charitable donations to be deducted from personal income. European nations usually don’t do that, though they allow a small percentage of individual taxes to go to specific causes.
That is again an empirical claim that is not consistent with the data: Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Belgium, Austria, Switzerland, Poland all offer very significant deductions (sometimes more than the US). The exceptions as far as I know are countries like Sweden, Norway and Estonia, which limit the total tax reduction at around USD 600-1200/year (still not insignificant)
> As you say, it’s complicated, and neither one of us is an economist. From a philosophical perspective I’d rather rely on taxes than donations because the former are more substantial, less arbitrary, democratic, and largely fair.
My claim is that you don't have to choose, and there is no reason to believe increasing donations to effective charities will not cause a decrease in taxation. If nothing else, the vast majority of Government budget is spent nationally. Americans believe that 25% of the federal budget goes to foreign aid ( https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-every-american-should-know-about-u-s-foreign-aid/ ), but in reality it's less than 1%. If you donate to the poorest people globally there is going to be relatively little overlap with taxes (which instead pay for healthcare, public infrastructure, education, military, ...)
> The latter may be well intentioned, but they are often used as an excuse not to address root problems, and they give cover to billionaires who buy themselves good will while continuing to exploit people for their own gain.
Just noting that the billionaires who donate more to charity promote parties and policies that would increase taxation, and the billionaires that give less to charity promote parties and policies that would decrease taxation (compare Bill Gates to Elon Musk)
Thanks for the article. I was hoping you would begin a discussion along these lines. I was very enamored with Peter Singer's approach a few years back. As you point out, there are some very unobjectionable parts. But those apply mostly to the basic idea that determining where to give should rest on a series of criteria, not just the "moral score" of the activity. This includes things like how effective would a particular charity be if it received all the money it asked for (could it be scaled up while maintaining effectiveness). However, one area that doesn't seem to be addressed is whether charity as such is the best way forward. One criticism of charity is that it does not address the major structural issues that prevent the expansion of human flourishing, and in some ways functions as an ideological cover for maintaining a system of inequality. I hope these thoughts aren't too rambling!
Glenn, I completely agree. I do mention, perhaps too quickly, that EA suffers from the fact that it works within the system rather than trying to address its structural problems.
As a European, I think taxes are a far better way to redistribute resources than charity, and I agree that charity provides cover for rich people to continue exploiting others. The robber barons of the 19th century are mostly remembered for their charitable contributions (e.g., Carnegie Hall, Rockefeller University). But they were *robber* barons nevertheless.
Good read! I think I basically have the same thoughts as you. I like some aspects of the EA Movement (finding effective charities to donate to) and dislike other aspects (overly close to questionable wealthy folk, the long-termism can get a little absurd sometimes, etc.) I’m not entirely against the idea of earning more and then donating more, but at the same time I’m not sure if this is something to “strive” for vs more of just a good idea if you end up wealthy (you have to consider your natural talents/desires).
As for the EA Philosophy, I have to agree that insofar as it’s based on utilitarianism, it runs into all sorts of issues you’ve described. You can’t have an ethics that somehow computes utils (or whatever fancy new word they came up for that) and then base your life’s actions on that. You’d basically go insane. Virtue ethical approaches are more grounded, reasonable, and match up with our intuition better.
That said I do think utilitarian philosophy can be useful up to a point in broader political issues. I probably don’t really care about whether “taxing the rich more is morally wrong/right”, but I just want to tax them more so we can fund more programs and improve more lives! I think that is a somewhat utilitarian way of thinking, so I’m not sure if there’s a direct way to incorporate that into virtue ethics or if it’s eclectic.
Matthew, I generally agree with your comments. I do think we should strive to donate to charities in a more effective way (insofar as we can tell), but I don’t think utilitarianism is a sound base for an ethical philosophy.
In terms of taking into account consequences, don’t forget that virtue ethicists also pay attention to the likely consequences of their actions. They just don’t think that’s the overarching determining factor: https://thephilosophygarden.substack.com/p/virtue-ethics-rules-and-consequences
For any ethical framework, it is never a good sign when your thought experiments can be the premise of a dystopian/postapocalyptic sci-fi novel. EA and utilitarianism unfortunately fall into nightmare scenarios very early and very fast. 🤔
Good point!