Does Informed Philanthropy mean effective altruism?
Being in this class has really changed my outlook on philanthropy.
I thought being philanthropic simply meant giving away your money, and that was
where it ended. Not only have I learned about the essence of philanthropy
but the importance of being informed in our philanthropic efforts. Philanthropy
is more than simply giving away your money, it is a process of gathering
information about an organization or a cause to make an informed decision.
However, does gathering all this data mean that one will make the most
effective decision? Does informed philanthropy always equate to being an effective
altruist.
I truly believe that being informed helps one to make the most
effective decision. On the other hand, I don’t think that being informed
necessarily means that a person will choose the most effective decision. Peter
Singer encourages us to engage in effective altruism which essentially dictates
that if your donation will help 100 people as opposed to one then you give
where it will numerically make the most impact. In my opinion, effective
altruism is really about the numbers, but what about making a numerically small
impact? Isn’t it the impact that counts? What about simply changing the life of
one person?
In my opinion, being informed gives a philanthropist the details
he/she needs about the organization or cause they have considered donating to
as well as the tools he/she needs to be an effective altruist. However the
truth is I don’t believe every informed philanthropist will be an effective
altruist. People have different passions, people see the world differently and
while being effective may matter to one philanthropist, it may not matter to
another.
A person may see that he could make the most numerical impact in
one organization after gathering all the data but still decide on donating to a
cause serving only one person because he is truly passionate about the cause.
Regardless of this reality, I do believe that being an informed has more
benefits than making the most effective decision.
What do you all think?
Here are two interesting articles that I found!
https://www.macfound.org/press/perspectives/what-makes-philanthropist/
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_elitist_philanthropy_of_so_called_effective_altruism
Here are two interesting articles that I found!
https://www.macfound.org/press/perspectives/what-makes-philanthropist/
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_elitist_philanthropy_of_so_called_effective_altruism
Hi Natassia,
ReplyDeleteThank you for introducing this idea of informed altruism vs. effective altruism! I agree that the amount of good we do cannot be measured perfectly by numbers alone, and there are issues with the valuation of life in the lens of effective altruism. Given the inability to quantify the value of a life, however, I like to see effective altruism as an effort to rationalize a decision as much as possible despite our biases and imperfect analyses. It is not as simplified as the response article views it; rather, it is dynamic, adjusting to change through time.
For instance, if everyone were effective altruists, we would not pool all of our resources for one cause, as the SSIR author suggests. Rather, I think that we would contribute to the most likely cause to do the most good UNTIL the cause is deemed not as much of a need, and secondary priorities would come next, and so forth until everyone has contributed some. This would result in the most people supporting the primary cause, a smaller amount supporting secondary causes, and then even smaller amounts of people filling niche needs. Thus, the effective altruism model does not squeeze out the niche causes. But I do believe niche causes serve as all "niche" things do; along the fringe, not mainstream. The causes which the most people think are the most important will be addressed first; second-most second; third-most third, etc.
Perhaps the more interesting question is: how much different would a world of effective altruists look from our more varied-philosophy world at present? In other words, would mass adoption of effective altruism change the world for the better, or is it merely a distraction from the good we are already doing?
Natassia,
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of this class three things really confused me. Those were the definitions for philanthropist, altruist, and humanitarian. I found that while a philanthropist could be considered an altruist or humanitarian, an altruist or humanitarian may not always be considered a philanthropist because the aspect of giving time and money was not always there. So, you are right to say that “Philanthropy is more than simply giving away your money”. Besides being a process of gathering information and deciding which organizations will best use whatever time or money we can provide, it is also about making an active effort to promote human welfare.
You ask about making numerically small impact. I’ve previously expressed reasons for why we shouldn’t count it out just yet. I agree with you and Jerray that the value of a life cannot be quantified, however, I think that the “ripple effect” of smaller, more direct impact can be still be easily seen. For example, when Gabe and I were asked to portray the Garcia family and advocate for their GoFundMe account we wanted to express their impact on the local community. We stressed that helping them rebuild their home would help the many others who relied on them as pillars of the community. The GoFundMe page was included as a means of showing the class what direct donations could do and how they would work compared to if they were donated to much larger organizations. However, what I think the class believed the Garcia’s lacked was a means of accountability and trustworthiness. My thing with GoFundMe is that it gives people a personal connection to who they’re donating to, as well as, providing a lifeline to those receiving donations. It probably wouldn’t surprise most of you to learn that I too have a personal connection with GoFundMe and so I can attest to being one of the people who has written the updates and “thank you” notes to the donors. In this way donors are informed instead of left in the dark like many fear they will be. It just goes to show that these means of small impact do have ways of being held accountable
Of course those donating to GoFundMe are usually related to the recipients in some way, shape, or form, so maybe accountability lacks because there is already an unspoken trust established between the donors and recipients.
If this is true than I stress that we keep funding campaigns like those on GoFundMe around when we wish to make small direct impact within our own communities and circles because that sense of accountability and trusts already exists there. I don’t think these campaigns should be written off because they do not fit Peter Singer’s template for effective altruism, instead I think philanthropists need to look at a separation in the ways we give. Maybe giving to large organizations based on a gut feeling isn’t so wise because you cannot be thoroughly informed this way. Maybe when giving to smaller organizations or funding campaigns like those on GoFundMe more “heart” should be used. Either way, I believe that the solution for what we call “effective giving” isn’t going to be found within the confines of a term like “effective altruism” and I don’t think it will be free like the whims of the “heart”. Instead I think the solution lies somewhere in-between; where the lines aren’t so straight, and the boundaries aren’t quite so defined. I may have already decided how I’d like to contribute to the world as a philanthropist, but I still believe it is important for others to evolve their understanding of the concepts so that they can find their own ways. To diversify our efforts as philanthropists may allow us to tackle more issues, thus doing “the most good we can do” with as many people as we have, rather than tackling these issues one at a time which would cause a wait list for what we don’t prioritize as most important.
Hi Natassia,
ReplyDeleteIt's really great to hear about the evolution of your understanding of philanthropy and taking it a step farther by questioning if all philanthropy is effective. I completely agree that even a very informed philanthropist can make errors in being as effective as possible because of preconceived notions and personal passions. However, my question for you would then be: is it every possible to completely remove bias and actually find the most effective way to practice philanthropy? I don't think this is completely possible, leaving no room for error. Effective altruism is about the numbers but maybe there is a way of quantifying or valuing one saved life and one life that was improved so there can be a more appropriate comparison. I took a class on the economics of the health sector in the United States last semester. In the class we were told that one year of healthy life should be valued at $100,000 and from there we were able to make calculations based on how long a person is sick for and how much their cost of treatment is with and without health insurance. Perhaps instead of looking at a number of people, we could look at a dollar value for the philanthropy we are doing to determine how to do the most good.
Hey Natassia,
ReplyDeleteI must say I resonate with your idea. When I think of effective altruism as an ideology, I don’t think that it necessarily means making our donation solely based on the anticipated utility of it. It is more like finding the right balance between what you care about and the impact our donation can achieve. In other words, we have to know we are doing so our resource don’t go to waste.
I agree with you that people have different passions, one could still go the other way even if he is informed that donating to one cause can make a significant impact. If we think about it this way, people in Africa are who need our donation the most, considering the hardship many of them are suffering and the marginal utility our donation could achieve in the African continent. However, most people in the US are still more predisposed towards donating to a childcare center in their own community, even though African kids can gain a lot more with the same amount of donation.
So, like you said, there is indeed a distinct difference between effective altruism and inform altruism if we consider effective altruism as an absolute term to maximize the utility of one’s philanthropic action.