For this week, our reading assignments focuses on effective altruism, according to philosopher and philanthropist, Peter Singer. In his Ted talk, “The Why and How of Effective Altruism” he discusses how this growing movement emphasizes the balance between heart and head. This concept of philanthropy is something that I believe will always be relevant to our class because, for example, as we listen to more charity pitches or when we decide on an issue area, it is evident that we will have to find a balance between our own values and research, in order to make the most effective decision.
In the Ted talk, Singer describes the concept of head versus heart with a real life example. He shows part of a disturbing clip in which a young child is about to be run over by a truck and people passing by do nothing. While the audience, and myself included, are certain that we would have acted differently, Singer raises a very thought provoking testimony. He refers to the UNICEF website and its data on child mortality. In 2011 it is stated that 6.9 million children under the age of 5 died from poverty-related diseases that were also preventable. After researching current UNICEF data, I found that this number has decreased to 5.6 million(Source). While it is fortunate that the number has decreased, Singer’s argument remains relevant. He refers to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation tagline: “All Lives Have Equal Value.” Just because these dying children may not be right in front of us, it is still our moral responsibility to help save them. This is where the concept of heart versus head is extremely important. Singer develops this notion by stating the importance of reason and the realization that people are like us and they suffer just as we do. By doing so, it offers a more concrete perspective of the issue at hand. So are we as a society falling into the trap of tribalism? In the concept of tribalism, our actions and attitudes are derived from our loyalty to our own tribe or social group (Source). Of course we are willing to save a helpless child in front of us, but what about a helpless child millions of miles away?
This lead me to consider last week’s charity pitch between Concern Worldwide, the Crissy Fox Foundation, and the Animal Welfare Institute. I thought each presenter did a great job and chose very reliable and influential organizations. In the end, our class was most divided between the Crissy Fox Foundation and Concern Worldwide, with Chrissy Fox winning the pitch. After learning about effective altruism, I began to consider the factors behind the decision. While I am a supporter of both causes, it seems that Concern Worldwide may have a more effective impact because of its fight against global poverty on a large scale. However, since the Crissy Fox Foundation is focused locally on a smaller scale, all the money raised goes directly to a family in need. So which organizations is doing the most good? If we were basing the answer on Singer’s effective altruism, in my opinion, I think that he may have been a supporter of Concern Worldwide. This reverts back to Singer’s support for the Gates’ tagline “All Lives Have Equal Value.” In order to do the most good, it is vital that we expand our moral capacity greater than what is right in front of us. Practicing effective altruism is not to ignore the issues that around us, but to go beyond these issues and attempt to solve them on a larger scale.
The divide of votes between Concern Worldwide and the Crissy Fox Foundation was very understandable. At least for me, choosing the charity for this week was not an easy task. The importance of head versus heart was apparent but with both organizations ability to make a significant impact, it raised the question of whether that impact should be local or global. This week’s topic of effective altruism caused me to consider what is the way to do the most good. After researching more about effective altruism I came across the article, “A Little Charity Goes A Long Way.” This advice post presented an interesting solution: Give globally, act locally. By offering our time, volunteering in local organizations, we can make a significant impact. Then by donating our resources to organizations that act on a global scale, perhaps we can do the most good that we can as individuals. As evident from Singer’s discussion, whichever way we decide to spend our time and resources, it is important that we practice effective altruism in order to make the most difference.
I think Peter Singer makes many valid points in his discussion about effective altruism. What he talks about seems to line up with many priorities we have discussed in class. Over and over again we have discussed head versus heart, with the majority census seeming to be head. A consistent and main priority expressed thus far is making the biggest impact, spending most efficiently, giving most directly, etc.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as a class we seem to have contradicted that priority in choosing the Crissy Fox foundation. Sometimes I feel like we talk about deciding how to give as if we there were a “right” way and a “wrong” way. Someone might say our contradicting choices as a class reflect inexperience and the learning process. I think it may just be due to the fact that there is no one absolute correct or incorrect way to give. There is no right or wrong choice between head and heart. At the end of the day, both do good in their own ways. Different types of charity have their place.
In the Ted Talk, Singer contrasts giving $40,000, enough money to help train a guide dog for a blind person or help cure 400-2,000 people of blindness. Are more people helped with effective altruism? I would assume so, yes. Does the principle of effective altruism lead to more efficient use of money? I would also assume so, yes. Does that mean the blind person in need of a guard dog isn’t struggling? Does that mean they are not worthy of help? There are many issues and problems in this world that cannot be solved efficiently. If we always choose the option that is more efficient or that helps more people, many worthy causes would be neglected over time. I’m not saying one method of decision making in altruism is better than the other. I just think each has its place. The is no one size fits all solution to all problems. We seem to be so set on always having to have the numbers, make the biggest impact, be the most efficient. Often times that is important. But as this class goes on, I feel like it isn’t the whole picture.
Hi Kat,
ReplyDeleteThis has clearly been an important debate within our class, and I appreciate what you added to the conversation.
I haven’t read Peter Singer’s argument yet, but from what I understand after reading your post, it makes it seem that the donation that creates the greatest impact is the “best” donation. After I read this, however, it caused many questions to come to mind. Why does one have to give in order to “do the most good”? Why does there need to be a “methodology” in the process of philanthropic giving? How do you quantify what “the most good” even means? And why can’t a person just give because they felt empathy for another, even if it doesn’t create the greatest change?
Consider the following example: When walking down the street, you see a homeless man and decide to give him $100. However, you could have taken that $100 and given it to an organization that would use it to positively impact a greater number of people. In Peter Singer’s point of view, your donation to the organization is “better” than a donation to the man because more people benefit from it. I believe this to be objectively untrue, and that there shouldn’t be a value associated with your donation. In my opinion, the fact that you are helping someone in need should be all that matters, and that the decision to help more people wouldn’t be “better”.
Overall, I believe that everyone’s circumstances are different, and people are led to donate for different reasons. Creating a methodology or a “right” way to donate makes it impossible for everyone to give in the way that they wish to, or in the way that is most important to them. If it is your desire to crunch the numbers and make a decision based on the organization that will help the most people, then that is the decision that is right for you. That, however, does not make another person’s decision to give to a perhaps less effective but more personal organization wrong or a “worse” decision than yours.