The arrest and conviction of crypto criminal Sam Bankman-Fried has given effective altruism a bad name. That’s unfortunate, as it is a movement worthy of support. Some might argue that the best use of charitable expenditures is the local or national ballet or their cat and at any rate it isn’t our business: charity is about how it makes the giver feel and they have a right to do with they want with their money.
Look, most of philanthropy is devoted to enticing well-heeled donors to give more, never mind on what. So it’s not like actual alternatives to effective altruism are especially compelling.
Time to define our terms. Effective altruism (EA) is a charitable endeavor using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible, and taking action on that basis. So basically it’s a merging of empiricism and utilitarianism. Again, there are lots of potential motives for charity: these include the Lord’s command, public relations, a warm fuzzy feeling, or the acclaim of your peers. But if a person wants to actually do good and they are of a scientific mindset, then they will naturally be led to evidenced-based practice or EA.
Now to address some concerns.
EA isn’t new. Firstly, who cares? Secondly, EA’s sort of framing isn’t typical in the philanthropic community. Yes, Bill Gates deserves accolades for his evidence-based approach and furthermore for grasping the greater humanitarian benefits giving in the third world. While the Gates Foundation does give domestically, it’s a step away from the typical unfocused broad-portfolio approach of foundations like Ford or Rockefeller.
EA takes things a step further, putting charitable programs in head to head competition. Criteria include evidence of impact, cost-effectiveness, and whether the program operates in a crowded donor space relative to need. Over at Givewell, they currently have a total of 4 organizations on their top-charity list. That’s not a high number and these aren’t multi-billion dollar operations.
Cite? I have one. Givewell provides links so you can donate to their recommended charities directly. If you donate to their top charities fund (4 beneficiaries) they charge a very modest and very reasonable fee of zero percent. Oh sorry, they do charge a credit card fee. That’s it.
You can also donate to their unrestricted fund, which they are forthright about:
We generally use unrestricted funding for operating expenses (which includes staff salaries, travel expenses, website maintenance, and other routine operational costs). However, we have an “excess assets” policy, which provides that once we surpass a certain level of unrestricted assets, we earmark the excess for granting rather than continue to hold it ourselves. You can read more about our excess assets policy here.
To avoid overly relying on a single source of support, we cap the amount of funding any individual or entity may provide to our operations at 20 percent.
Compare this policy to the entirely emotional appeals of Save the Children or the nonempirical but possibly worthy efforts of Oxfam et al or hell any charitable junk mail solicitation. I say EA is better. Givewell publishes a blog if anyone wants to tease out some of their objectionably utilitarian behavior or argument.
There are other EA organizations of course: Givewell is just the one I’m relatively familar with (not that I visit their website often). Feel free to provide other links.
Where’s the debate? “Those wishing to do the greatest amount of good with their charitable dollars should use evidence to decide which organizations will do the greatest amount of good with their charitable dollars. That implies an EA approach.”