Altruism

About an hour ago, while walking along Fitzroy Street in St. Kilda, I saw three young Black men—possibly of African descent—ordering food from an African restaurant. On my way back, I caught them handing out the takeaways to homeless individuals near the 7-Eleven and Caremore Bain & Co Pharmacy. It was a deeply moving scene that brought tears to my eyes. They truly made my day. Thank you!

I read this blog by Bill Gates shining a light on the inequities in the world and how he shared ideas to provide a more sustainable future for future generations. However, reading the Reddit thread comments people were flooding it with massive hate on him and how he is like all the other billionaires who are part of the problem. Relatively speaking, I thought he is one of the good billionaires out there that touch on the very subjects hitting our generation today such as climate change and world hunger. I’ve never heard of other billionaires such as Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos talking about sustainability or social inequities. Did I miss a memo on the massive hate on Bill Gates with his altruistic work and is any of the hate commentary substantiated?

What is Effective Altruism?

Effective Altruism (EA) is a philosophical and social movement that aims to answer a simple question, but one that's hard to answer: How can we use our resources to help others the most?

EA claims to combine empathy with empirical reasoning, focusing on evidence and rigorous analysis to determine the most effective ways to benefit others.

However, such claims are difficult to quantify, as when judging effectiveness, EA proponents argue for employing a consequentialist ethical view. As the saying goes: "The road to hell is lined with good intentions"

This may mean that they may believe that as long as the final result is good, the road to get there was good. Or if the final result was bad, the road to get there was bad. However, it appears that the EA view is to apply ethical reasoning along each step of the process.

I'll try to be as level handed as I can. I'm not exactly a follower of EA philosophy; but I am of the belief that it's currently getting a bad rap for things that don't have much to do with its philosophy itself, but more with individual interpretations of that philosophy.

Core Principles of Effective Altruism

1. Empirical Evidence: EA emphasizes using scientific evidence and careful reasoning to determine the most effective ways to improve lives.

2. Rational Decision-Making: Decisions about where to allocate resources are made based on data and effectiveness, rather than personal biases or emotional appeals.

3. Scope and Scale: EA considers the scale of an issue, seeking solutions that can have a large-scale impact.

4. Neglectedness: It often focuses on areas that are neglected but have the potential for high impact.

5. Tractability: The likelihood of an intervention making a significant impact is a key consideration.

Key Focus Areas

• Global Health and Development: Finding and funding interventions that can significantly improve health and economic outcomes in developing countries.

• Animal Welfare: Advocating for and implementing strategies to reduce animal suffering, particularly in industrial farming.

• Long-Term Future: Addressing risks that could affect humanity's long-term future, like artificial intelligence safety and pandemic prevention.

• An Important Note: As with all philosophy, this is just the scope of the areas they wish to discuss. There's a wide ranging array of views in regards to each of these areas and what best fulfils the aims EA. For instance, a group wanting to hamstring AI and a group that wants full featured AI can simultaneously exist under the EA umbrella.

Further Reading

• They got a damn textbook: You can learn more about the principles and research of EA through resources like

No, seriously, read it. It's friggin' huge. What I'm saying here are just the basics, if you truly want to understand EA, this post won't suffice.

Criticisms

• Oversimplification of Complex Problems: One critique is the argument that EA's emphasis on quantifiable impact can oversimplify complex social and ethical issues.

• Prioritization of Causes: EA's focus on certain causes over others can be a bit disagreeable, as it may overlook important but less measurable areas of need.

• Utilitarian Leanings: EA is often associated with utilitarian ethics, which prioritize actions that maximize overall happiness or well-being. This can lead to ethical dilemmas, where the well-being of a few might be sacrificed for the greater good. There are a number of logical errors in most utilitarian applications. Namely, when the nature of an action does benefit a larger number of people, but there still seems to be an objection based on some other ground. An example of such a thing would be: two consenting adult siblings of the same sex engage in an incestuous relationship. In a utilitarian sense, this would be completely acceptable, however, I believe one would be hard pressed to find a utilitarian with such a view. When it comes to ethics, applying philosophy is tricky and usually not strictly adhered to. It's more that people have emotional judgements for things and then use philosophy to rationalize these judgements as opposed to actually holding a philosophical viewpoint.

• Actions of Prominent Figures: The behavior of individuals who claim to adhere to EA principles, such as Sam Bankman-Fried, has drawn criticism. Actions that are perceived as unethical or contradictory to EA principles have led to debates about the movement's integrity and the application of its values in real-world scenarios. I would argue that in any movement and especially in a philosophical movement, many people will not be on the same page. People will have different ideas on what the ethical course of action will be. For instance, in Stoicism, some believe that it was virtuous to be celibate as any action in service of lust was seen as hedonistic in nature. Other philosophers believed that pursuing and enjoying love and connection, to include sex was a virtuous endeavor, in line with the pursuing eudaimonia, human flourishing. Drastically different views, however both are valid applications of the underlying principles. It is not enough to look at the results of a philosophy to come to a judgement about it. Instead look at the philosophy itself and judge the actions in relation to how well they adhere to the concepts presented.

This post was just meant to be something like a 101 on Effective Altruism, since there seems to be an interest in it on this sub in relation to events that have transpired recently. It wasn't meant to have my own personal views, though in explaining some examples, I did allow some bias to slip through in service of providing the logical argument that I believe makes the most sense.

I'm not an Effective Altruist, as I primarily believe that philosophy should serve as a foundation to build up your world view, not as your world view itself. Philosophy has historically been lacking in its ability to address real world problems in a broad way.

EA seeks to remedy this, however, I'm skeptical of its ability to do so. The human propensity to act against nature (nature is philosophically defined in stoicism* as "the best version of a species/thing") leads me to believe that, while admirable, it is ultimately doomed to be ineffective.

Edit: Clarified that this is a stoic interpretation of nature