Contents
Shortly before Christmas, many people ask themselves the question: How can we help others? Effective altruism promises to improve the world according to rational criteria. Sounds good, but it also has its drawbacks.
The core idea of effective altruism is not to be guided by feelings, but rather to use our money as effectively as possible. In focus: the suffering of many, efficient use of resources and previously neglected areas such as pandemic prevention.
Every human life should be worth the same, no matter where it exists. This utility-oriented ethic suggests that we are morally obligated to do good and to do good with maximum effectiveness. The movement is influenced by thinkers such as Peter Singer and William MacAskill.
The future is uncertain
Despite its laudable intentions, Effective Altruism has sparked controversy: for example, the movement seeks long-term solutions for future generations through so-called “long-termism”. But how can we decide today whether a current problem is less important than something we predict in the future?
When we focus on saving future generations, we may neglect today’s needs. This is particularly evident in emergency and disaster relief: it is difficult to consider long-term sustainability when the goal now is to save thousands.
Where is the humanity?
Critics from the fields of theology and ethics also argue that effective altruism could contribute to dehumanization. According to its principles, donations should theoretically only flow to developing countries where the money can be used most effectively.
But what about charity and local aid projects?
Structural problems remain
Another criticism of effective altruism is that the solutions are only superficial. The so-called “earn to give” principle can accumulate enormous wealth. However, it would fail to address structural injustices as such.
A striking example of this is the well-known representative of effective altruism, Sam Bankman-Fried. The wealthy crypto trader gained his wealth through his company FTX. He promised to donate most of his enormous $26.5 billion fortune to charity. But in November this year he was convicted of serious fraud and money laundering.
It is therefore true that Bankman-Fried was actively involved in solving social problems. At the same time, he embodied aspects of the structural challenges that give rise to these problems in the first place.
Effective Altruism has sparked important discussions about charity and humanitarian work. Nevertheless, the question arises as to whether he is neglecting empathy and taking current needs into account by acting rationally.