What motivates us to help others? What is THIS class’s mission
statement? Why do we do what we do? These are the questions I muse every time I
walk through the doors of classroom SW109. Sometimes I wonder what each of our
motivations are for taking Philanthropy & Civil Society. Do we show up for
the grade or do we show up because we think we can really help people and make
a difference?
I signed up for this class because I was intrigued by what seemed
like an amazing opportunity. In what other situation would you ever be able to
give away $10,000 that isn’t your own money? It presented an ability to do the
most good without the seemingly obvious consequence. I grew up with the idea
that people deserve the most help that can be given to them. When I was
younger, I used to tell my father that when I grew up I wanted to be the kind
of person that kept a jar of spare change and dollars in the car to give to
homeless people on the street. I believed that my small loss could do great
things for someone else. Besides, what was a few dollars if I was probably just
going to use it to buy another Barbie doll anyway? However, I have been taught
a lesson from this class; that my way is apparently not the most “effective”
way and essentially that that makes it the “wrong” way. It disheartens me to
think that; it truly does. What leaves a bad taste in my mouth is the
statistical and logistical aspects of our class; the fact that we tend to
choose based off of where the numbers lead us over any other factors. Who are we;
as philanthropists, to decide who deserves help and who doesn’t based on a
template for effective giving and statistical impact? What gives us the right
to put a price on people’s heads, to essentially assign value to their human
existence?
In Peter Singer’s TED talk, “The why and how of effective altruism,”
he discusses effectiveness in terms of people who are blind. He says, to “Take, for example, providing a guide dog for a blind
person. That's a good thing to do, right?... It costs about
40,000 dollars to train a guide dog and train the recipient so that the guide dog can be an effective
help to a blind person. It costs somewhere between 20 and 50 dollars to cure a blind
person in a developing country if they have trachoma.” Essentially,
he’s saying that “You could provide one guide dog
for one blind American, or you could cure between 400
and 2,000 people of blindness.”
To him there is no question about what should be done. He believes we should do
what we can to help the most people. I don’t disagree with that, but I cannot
help but to think that that “one blind American” is being reduced to a number.
In terms of effective altruism, we are agreeing to not help someone’s mom, dad,
wife, husband, or child; a person who’s impact on the world we could never fathom
and whose impact may leave profound changes to the human existence. Effective
altruism is good in theory, but I must believe that if everyone followed this
template then many people like me; who have been lucky to be on the other end
of so much philanthropic giving, would be written off as something that simply doesn’t
make the most direct impact. Yet we’re philanthropists, not soothsayers and we
cannot be left to determine who should be given the means to live and who
should not. There’s a slippery slope here. Say that the “one blind American”
has the means to change the world and save or inspire millions of others. Does
their potential to help the many outweigh the fact that they serve the least direct
impact? This parallels our rationality that an organization that puts a
band-aid on the problem is not as effective as those who serve long-term
change. We would rather donate to organizations that work to fix world hunger
and alleviate poverty rather than food banks and shelters that help in the meantime.
Yet if everyone donated in order to get the largest impact then where would
that leave people in the meantime? Waiting for solutions, starving and dying on
the streets; that’s where they would be. In no situation can I see effective
altruism as the sole method for philanthropic giving. In no way would I admit
it is the best way.
At the end of the day I see philanthropy as a means
to better the world and to alleviate people from the terrible situations that
they currently must endure. However, I think I will continue to give the way I
have been taught by my parents and not by the ways of Peter Singer. I want to
help people for the sake of helping people, whether they live far or near,
whether they can be grouped with the many or the few. My way of thinking may never
be deemed the most “effective”, but I cannot be turned into someone who says
that my “heart” is satisfied by the “largest statistical impact”. My “heart” is
my humanity and I refuse to lose sight of it.
An "ineffective" altruist: http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1808049,00.html
An "ineffective" altruist: http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1808049,00.html
Hi Jaclyn,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your post. I have similar thoughts to yours on the topic of effective altruism. I think that one cannot say whose life is more valuable or worth more money than the other. Not only is not practical to compare apples to oranges, but I think that we all act with our heart more than our head.
In my philosophy course, we talked about something called the trolley problem. The trolley problem is a thought experiment in ethics. (You can read more about it from the link down below.) What it essentially boils down to is: are five lives worth more than one life? The first thing my class thought of was, who are the people on the tracks? The answer changes the course of action. Whether one would let five people die or one person die depends on what the people on the train tracks mean to the person at the switch. Here, one can see that the heart plays a role. If we were to consider that all of the people on the train tracks were exactly equal, then it would make sense that five lives are worth more than one life. But in reality, no two people are exactly the same.
From this thought experiment, one can see that our hearts get in the way of our decisions and that we cannot compare two different situations. Therefore, I agree with you, that I do not see effective altruism as the best approach to philanthropy. I don’t think there is a perfect way to approach philanthropy. I think this quote sums up our thoughts well-”Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
Hi Jaclyn,
ReplyDeleteI would like to start by saying that I very much agree with your argument, and I have a very similar view of Peter Singer and effective altruism.
I was raised in much the same was as you were; my mom always taught me that if I am in the position to help people than I should do so. This is not any different from what Peter Singer says, but I have always been taught to give, as you have, with my heart and not because of statistical analysis.
While I cannot speak to everyone else’s motivations for taking this class, I took it to learn about Philanthropy and to hopefully make a difference for someone in need. However, I realized through our readings and class discussions that I completely disagree with the notion of, as you call it, a “template for effective giving.” My heart, and who I am as a person tells me that this is wrong. You mention the people who need help in the meantime, or that blind person in need of a guide dog. Additionally, if we all gave like effective altruists, what would happen to that little boy who wants to be Batman, people like the Garcia Family, or those people who just aren’t the best investments? In the mind of Peter Singer, these people are just statistical oversights. They are seen as numbers who unfortunately aren’t high enough.
You ask if a person’s potential would make an impact on our decision to donate. Unfortunately, this is not something which is easily quantified or taken into consideration when making a decision. There is no formula for effective altruists that will tell you what the potential of a person is if you save them, and it honestly would just make an impossible decision harder. However, would it really be humane if we didn’t at least think about it? To me, it seems only fair to view these people, well, as people. They are beings with real problems facing real suffering and have real lives. They are more than just the numbers assigned to them by effective altruists, and I believe that needs to be taken into consideration when you decide how to donate.
Overall, I think everyone gives for different reasons and everyone has a different motivation. While I think that some statistical analysis is required to make donations, there is more to giving than just numbers. I guess the “template” that we learn about is a means for people to understand a complicated process with many similar and seemingly good options. However, in my opinion philanthropy is a very personal thing that connects you to people by more than just your wallet, and my personal giving, much like yours, will be treated as such.
Hi!
ReplyDeleteI want to start by saying that in my opinion anything you do good for another person no matter how small is still worthy. I took this class because I wanted to make a difference in the community I live in. I personally do not believe that, by donating your change to homeless person or donating towards seeing eye dogs rather than curing blindness, that you are doing the “wrong” thing. I think the question is more are you doing the best thing? Also, to be put off by statistics and logistics and wanting this class to be based on heart is quite puzzling to me. We are spending nearly 3 months picking an organization to donate to. We are here to make the biggest difference we can. If people in their everyday life do not have 3 months to research, I say go ahead give your change away, donate to whatever cause you want. But again, I am stressing we are spending 3 months picking an organization. We don’t get to decide who gets help. So, we might as well make sure its as many people as possible. You say, “Who are we; as philanthropists, to decide who deserves help and who doesn’t base on a template for effective giving and statistical impact?” I would assume you’d want to help the most amount of people and not just a select few. We aren’t putting prices on people, were just trying to do the best for as many people as we can. Would it be ethical for us to knowingly donate to something that will help less people than another organization? You also say, “We would rather donate to organizations that work to fix world hunger and alleviate poverty rather than food banks and shelters that help in the meantime. Yet if everyone donated in order to get the largest impact then where would that leave people in the meantime? Waiting for solutions, starving and dying on the streets; that’s where they would be.” This is true and I do understand why these organizations need to exist. But we are trying to fix these problems. We are making an educated decision, we do not need to just donate $7500 worth of canned food, we could have done that day one In class. These are problems that need permanent solutions and while I totally get and agree with people needing immediate relief, that is not what we care here to do in this class. Thank you for your opinion and I hope you can see mine.
Sincerely
Jacob Croes
Hi everybody,
ReplyDeleteI think so far everyone has made valid points. One thing I will say is no matter what side you take, it seems we are under the impression that it one side of the argument or the other. But I think the reality is that life and the problems we have are complex. It isn’t black and white, perhaps not even grey. It’s a very colorful spectrum. There is no one size fits all approach to solving all problems. Every situation and issue area is unique, so for that reason I feel comparing different issues or comparing different methods to giving is like comparing apples to oranges. It cannot be done.
My education here at Binghamton has been full of mathematical equations and laws of science. We use these to find answers, solve problems, and learn. While equations can be helpful, any statistics class will teach you that statistics CAN lie and paint a picture different from reality. Correlation is not always causation. Additionally, in many scientific calculations there is always error. One class I’m currently in is hydrogeology (the study of groundwater flow). These systems are extremely complex and vary largely. There are a number of methods to calculating things like flow, discharge and such using equally complex equations. My professor always tells us that the answer we calculate will never be right. There is no way to get the actual answer, just various ways of generating estimations. I think philanthropy is similar. We can try to generate a master formula to giving but its accuracy will vary.
There is no “right” or “wrong” way to give so long as you do good and mean well - I think we can all agree on that. The way I see it is effective altruism and it’s heart heavy “ineffective” counterpart are just two different methods. Neither is better than the other. Each has its pros and cons and valuable points. I think it would be wrong for everyone to pick one way of giving. We need both. One is an apple, the other is an orange, and the philanthropic world needs a well balanced diet.
Hi Jaclyn,
ReplyDeleteI learned of effective altruism months before coming into this class, and to this day, I remain skeptical of it. Of course, there’s many ways I understand the movement because of its hyper-rationality. Reading Singer’s “The Most Good You Can Do,” it was hard for me to mentally rebut his argument that favored saving multiple lives over granting one child’s wish. However, I definitely relate to your concern that this idea reduces people to simple numbers, and doesn’t take into account our humanity. Also, at what point do the comparisons stop? There are so many different causes, but are we all to gear our efforts towards “the neediest”? And how can we truly quantify need? Yes, it’s easy to say that saving lives is the greatest good, but I believe beneficiaries should also factor in the difference between “existing" and “living” for those who need aid. Some of those in need may not be struggling for survival, but what they’re experiencing may be much beyond our comprehension, our statistics, and our labels.
In my sociology class, I learned of many impoverished youth across America at risk of falling down the school-to-prison pipeline. Without proper support, they make little headway into their education and end up in situations that land them in prison. It’s a hopeless phenomenon that has people wondering whether small changes will help or if a restructuring of the entire education system is necessary. Major philanthropic efforts could help this situation, but with the way I understand effective altruism, we could always find someone who has it worse. A person could easily say, Why fund education when others are dying and incapable of ever achieving the privilege that is education?
Of course, many effective altruists retain their humanity, and know when the rationality of the concept is too rational. But the ideology of the movement can be a hard pill to swallow.
Hi Jaclyn,
ReplyDeleteI have to agree that I have struggled with similar thoughts regarding effective altruism. It is like economics and the constant emphasis of getting the most efficient outcome. The truth is that that doesn’t necessarily work for everyone. Though I know that in everything there needs to be a measure of how best resources can be used, it is rather hard to use the same measure when talking about effective altruism. I do completely agree that effective altruism looks good in theory but in the reality when that theory is to be tested it becomes a whole other story.
I understand Peter Singer’s argument and why we should engage in effective altruism however it’s doesn’t soothe the feeling I get when I think about the people who are overlooked simply because giving to them isn’t the most effective form of altruism. Similarly to Ann, I have heard about the trolly problem which can definitely be compared to effective altruism and likewise the most effective decision in that situation makes me very uncomfortable.
I’m very aware of the reality that not everyone will be able to be helped by philanthropy. However, I don’t believe that insisting on effective altruism in every aspect of philanthropy may produce the most efficient result. As such, I believe that is the reason that not everyone should participate in effective altruism. I believe though effective altruism may seemingly make a bigger impact, helping one person as opposed to 10 is still making a huge impact.
I believe that all life matters and though being effective is a great goal when participating in altruism, we should never forget about equity.
Hey Jacklyn,
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I want to say thank you. When I saw Peter Singer's TED talk, I felt that a part of me just doesn’t entirely agree with what he said in spite of his cogent argument on effective altruism. I couldn’t seem to figure out clearly why that is, so I didn’t give too much thought about it, until I see your post today.
I originally found it hard to disagree with Mr. Singer because I am perfectly aware of how we should always seek to maximize the utility of our resources. Why spend forty thousand dollars on training and feeding one guide dog when we can cure hundreds of people of glaucoma with the same amount of resources, or we could use that money to purchase thousands of bed nets to save children in Africa from malaria. Try arguing with that! According to him, it is a waste if we make “ineffective donations”. It seems to make every bit of sense. However, like you said, who are we to put a price on people’s heads, to essentially assign value to their human existence? We can’t simply use data and numbers to quantify the effectiveness of a donation and decide who we should donate to, because that is not what people do.
I believe that people’s disposition and personal connection with the issue area will determine whether he will give or not. As most people would prefer to give to something he shares connection with, something he cares about. You can’t tell that person: “Don’t give you money to that, give it to something else that is more effective.” Maybe in the end, the person will not donate because the thing that is effective is not where the person’s mind is at.
With all being said, it is still essential to consider where you money will achieve the most when making a donation, however, it is also important to donate to something you really care about. If no one is ever allowed to make heart over head decisions when donating, I would predict that we will lose half of the donations in our society, because that will simply take away people’s incentive to give. So, keep making contributions to where you mind is at Jacklyn, but do that with both passion and discretion!