Never have humans had such a unique opportunity to do good. We are living at a time when unprecedented economic growth and technological advance have given us the wealth and tools to dramatically change the lives of the neediest people in the world. But such an opportunity also brings a challenge: how can we do good in the most effective way, providing the greatest benefits with limited resources?
This is the big question asked by effective altruism, a philosophy I heard about through the Oxford-based group, Giving What We Can, which was set up by two Oxford philosophers, Toby Ord and William MacAskill, in 2009. Giving What We Can is a community of students dedicated to ending global poverty, who, to achieve this aim, have signed a pledge to give 10 per cent of their future income (or 1 per cent of their living expenses while a student or unemployed) to the world’s most effective charities. I’ve been thinking about effective altruism for a while, and have finally resolved to take the 10% giving pledge. Although the economically astute among you may recognise its implications for financial security, I’m excited by the idea that I can have an impact in the fight against poverty and put my money inside my own mouth.
Effective altruism has complicated implications. One suggestion, for example, is that donating to disaster relief efforts is a far less effective use of money than giving to organisations which try to tackle global health issues, such as malaria. Another is that unglamorous measures, like distributing bed nets or ridding children of parasitical worms, are more effective than creative solutions, such as a children’s roundabout doubling as a water pump, which might capture the public imagination, but really has a limited, or even negative, impact. A large charity, implementing a variety of projects, is likely to use additional funding less effectively than a smaller charity which implements a single, carefully researched project because this single project can be scaled up more easily.
Recommendations like these are reached through rigorous evaluation of the impact of different charitable projects, carried out by the non-profit organisation, GiveWell. These evaluations are based upon four principle criteria: the backing of evidence, cost-effectiveness, transparency and a need for additional funding. On the basis of these assessments, GiveWell provide a list of ‘Top Charities’, organisations which are rated as the most effective in the world. They include the Against Malaria Foundation, a charity which distributes insecticide-treated mosquito nets in thirty five developing countries, the Deworm the World Initiative, who fund and support school-based deworming programmes, and GiveDirectly, an organisation which makes no-strings-attached cash transfers to the very poorest people in Kenya and Uganda.
Once I had been persuaded by the argument for effective altruism, I switched donations which I was already making to the Against Malaria Foundation. I then committed to donating at least ten per cent of my pre-tax income to these most effective charities, when my English degree eventually lands me a job.
Before doing so, it was important for me think about my motivation for taking the pledge. Dedicating such a significant amount of money to charity should be made with the conviction that it is the right thing to do, rather than with a misplaced sense of self-righteousness.
There are two principal objections to effective altruism which occur to me. The first concerns perspective. Effective altruism encourages us to take on a dispassionate point of view which feels emotionally cold. How could I really tell someone who had lost family members to cancer that I thought giving money to a cancer research charity was ‘not as effective’ a use of money as it could be? In his book, Doing Good Better, William MacAskill notes that a similar view is held by two academics critical of effective altruism, who argue that the comparison of charitable causes “amounts to little more than charitable imperialism, whereby ‘my cause’ is just, and yours is—to one degree or another—a waste of precious resources”.
The second objection relates to politics and the long-term sustainability of effective giving. The causes which GiveWell suggests are the most effective are, without exception, non-governmental organisations (NGOs). By offering free healthcare and education, NGOs inadvertently diminish the responsibility of the state, because they cause citizens to be less demanding of state-implemented health and education services. In areas where NGOs do not operate, therefore, people may suffer worse state-provided health and education. Moreover, with NGOs offering public services, citizens are more likely to be content amid a corrupt political system. This has the potential of becoming a vicious circle, with the ultimate risk of serious political instability, or even war, which may prevent NGOs from carrying out their work anyway.
These are legitimate concerns, to which there are responses. Effective altruism may seem emotionless in its practice, but its origin is in a genuine and self-effacing desire to help other people—to such a degree, in fact, that effective altruists take great care in working out how they can do the most good. Anyway, we prioritise good causes all the time using common sense judgements.
The second objection is, in my opinion, more difficult to respond to. I can point out that the countries in which effective charities, like the Against Malaria Foundation, operate have some of the poorest states in the world, which are not capable of delivering the services which NGOs can. There’s no assurance that the public services delivered by these states will improve in the near future, whereas we have the ability to dramatically improve peoples’ lives now. It is also worth observing that GiveWell’s recommended charities will no doubt change in the future, in response to the changing needs of the world.
Having thought about what motivates me, and considered objections to effective altruism, I think that I’m ready to join many others around the world who are taking the 10% giving pledge this Christmas. I’m convinced that, by giving at least 10 per cent of my future income to effective charities, I will be able to make a small, but significant, impact on attempts to eliminate world poverty.
You can sign the 10% giving pledge online at www.givingwhatwecan.org
