It seems that the drive for and exercise of philanthropy remains constant across ages, but gets anchored in the worldview of the time and is driven by different motives.

In ancient Greece the wealthy financed a host of cultural and public activities. In part to give back to the community, yes, but also to showcase their wealth. While the primary focus for the ancient Greeks was social prestige and honor, there was also an underlying concern with cultivating good habits. This was formalized by Aristotle, known for virtue theory.

Monotheistic religions see it as an act of charity to help those in need. On the one hand there’s the ‘giving back’ element, but one also has a duty towards God. Deontology, grounded in religious and faith-based duty.

The Enlightenment and other more rationalist-based views see it as a ‘reasonable’ activity that promotes individual well-being. The ‘rational’ thing to do would be to combat disease and poverty, so individuals as well as societies in general could prosper. This complements the coercive taxation rules. We have a duty toward our fellow human beings. Deontology grounded in rational arguments.

There are also some utilitarian and consequentialist-based arguments therein. To decide how to give, the approach is more consequences-and-result-oriented. The goal is to determine which actions would bring about the greatest good for the greatest number of people. The main assumptions are that pursuing that which brings us pleasure in the long-run is good, and what would result in pain over time is bad.

The most complex aspect of giving, especially nowadays, when options abound and we are dealing with a host of problems, is to determine which of those to solve and how to allocate the money. Enter Effective Altruism (EA).

The movement is based on a few simple assumptions: we ought to promote the well-being of all sentient beings. Therefore, we should aim at maximizing our positive impact on the world. To do so, we need to tackle big, scalable, and tractable problems that haven’t been given much priority. The framework informs what effective altruists would need to prioritize. The how is determined by a mix of reason and empirical evidence.

We do still take philanthropy for granted, namely, as something that is good to engage in for whatever reason. Yet, with effective altruism, ’effectiveness’ gains precedence over anything else. Philanthropy is now dressed with the cloak of science.

Somehow it seems that philanthropy is an activity people presuppose. They tend to justify it according to their particular worldview. Taking that into consideration, a recap of the above when thinking about philanthropy is as follows:

  • if religion/reason => ethical theory of duty (e.g. monotheism and Kant among others)
  • if to cultivate a good character => virtue ethics (e.g. Aristotle)
  • if to bring the greatest good for the greatest number of people => utilitarianism (e.g. John Stuart Mill)

Some takes on philanthropy, as we see, are informed by a particular normative moral theory: what we ought to do, and the criteria based on which our actions are to be judged.

Effective altruism positions itself differently, as suggested by this post which also includes an excerpt from MacAskill. According to him, effective altruism is non-normative.

“Non-normative. Effective altruism consists of two projects, rather than a set of normative claims.”

The reason for this is to ensure compatibility with all the other normative moral theories. Removing the moral burden, and adding the rational and empirical dimension puts EA in a curious position: anyone is welcome only insofar as they follow reason and evidence.

However, therein lie the various issues that arise from such a stance. The claim that EA is a project that follows science and reason rather than a normative theory makes the project itself unfalsifiable. They deflect any attempt to scrutinize the very stance itself, which seems to be at the bottom of it inspired by a belief, a faith-based assumption: we need to do good in the world. This, as we see above, is not limited to EA.

When things don’t go as planned, when the decisions taken based on reason and evidence don’t necessarily result in the initially intended consequences, they can just justify the failure after the fact. The real EA, the one that results in a substantial positive impact on the world, is whatever the effective altruists decide based on the results that they deem positive.

Popper on the one hand, and Hayek on the other would look at this the same way they looked at Marxism and Socialism. Marxism presents itself as a scientific theory but is rather unfalsifiable; this is an important element for something to be categorized as scientific according to Popper. And Hayek would say that the fatal conceit is to assume that we would know what the best course of action is when our information is always wanting, and when it is impossible to predict the future in a dynamic world replete with uncertainty.

The way effective altruists dodge these criticisms is by offering the project as value-neutral both in the scientific and moral sense.

Effective altruism, however, does embrace a normative moral theory: longtermism. The theory argues that we ought to positively influence the long-term future, keeping in mind the importance of the well-being of future generations.

This echoes part of the argument I made about sanctions. By assuming you’re doing the right things, you might end up causing collateral damage. You also disregard the complexity of these issues.

For a movement that prides itself on making data-driven and science-backed decisions, their arguments are grounded by a philosophical worldview that is simply belief-driven. It is, again, unfalsifiable.

More to come on this one.