Statistical Philanthropy, Scientific Philanthropy, or Both?

After watching a TED talk, by Peter Singer, I was quite intrigued and moved by something that he had mentioned. Mr. Singer’s TED talk began with a tragic story of a young girl who had been ran over by a truck in a pedestrian accident. As soon as the accident occurred, which had been caught on camera, two individuals had walked by the poor girl and did not even think to stop and help. Mr. Singer asked the audience how many of them would in fact have stopped to help. Everyone raised their hands immediately, as was expected. However, Peter Singer remarked that their immediate altruistic response to the poor little girl may not have been the case. Mr. Singer responded to the audience by explaining that altruism, is not necessarily dependent on a certain type of individual character, rather a certain type of situation. In fact, he explained that the act of “altruism” must be synonymous to its own effectiveness.₁ Hence, the coined term: “effective altruism.”

This concept of effective altruism can be viewed within a variety of disciplines. In fact, there was a fascinating study published through the school of behavioral science in Santa Fe, in regard to the effect evolution may have on human interactive behavior. The study describes this concept of “gene culture” in which a certain action that benefits the human condition can become encoded into our genes and therefore passed down.2 One can interpret the pedestrian scenario, that Mr. Singer mentions, through this scientific lens. It could be that those who did not approach the hurt little girl could have been lacking this genetic component, hence the inability to give altruistically (without reciprocation). One could also derive, then, that a person either can give or cannot and that their effectiveness is what determines their own benefit.

This raised a question within me. A constant discussion in our course, is the contradiction of whether philanthropy must be motivated by our passions, our intellect, or both. In Mr. Singer’s TED talk, he dismisses this ongoing debate by replacing it with his discussion of “effective altruism”. Mr. Singer gives various examples of individuals who research the amount of good a specific action can do, and not a certain type of individual whom he or she can influence.₁ In other words, to Peter Singer and his followers, philanthropy is a means to statistically acknowledge a needy minority of some sort, and to provide for them in the most efficient way possible. It does not matter if those in need are in worse circumstances than others, or if by helping “them” (the needy minority) philanthropists are more closely aligned with their own core values. Peter Singer explains that the core value of giving itself, this genetically motivated action, and the understanding of a need of effective consistency is what is most important.

I find this fascinating and quite surprising. After so much discussion, it amazes me how with one lecture, the “head vs. heart” debate can be put to the side and settled with this eye-opening statistical approach to philanthropy. It could be that I am biased due to the fact that I am a health major who finds comfort in statistical significance. However, I truly believe, both my head and heart can be satisfied with a type of giving that helps the greatest amount of people, and I hope that I am lucky enough to contain the gene that can allow for its effectiveness.

Sources:
 https://www.ted.com/talks/peter_singer_the_why_and_how_of_effective_altruism?language=en
 “A framework for the unification of the behavioral sciences” https://www-cambridge-org.proxy.binghamton.edu/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/0D83E7AF2BC662608441385D5C46EBE7/S0140525X07000623a.pdf/towards_uniting_the_behavioral_sciences_with_a_genecentered_approach_to_altruism.pdf