Effective Altruism (EA) is a framework for maximizing the impact of charitable giving, aiming to do the "most good" with the resources available. Originally conceptualized by two Oxford philosophers, EA applies consequentialist moral theory to charitable actions, broadening the scope of charity recipients to include non-human animals. While some leftist critics argue that EA’s focus on cost-effectiveness depoliticizes welfare efforts, others see it as harmless due to its aim to persuade wealthy individuals to donate more effectively.
However, EA’s influence has grown significantly, with organizations like Open Philanthropy directing substantial funds across various sectors, including animal advocacy. This growth has empowered EA-affiliated ratings groups to significantly influence which organizations receive funding, favoring those deemed "effective" while marginalizing or pressuring others to align with EA metrics. Critics from within animal advocacy circles express concerns, often muted to avoid jeopardizing funding. Meanwhile, EA proponents often dismiss critics, believing their methods are sound.
The critique of EA can be divided into two main perspectives: the institutional critique and the philosophical critique. The institutional critique, voiced primarily by economists and political theorists, argues that EA’s focus on individual actions and short-term outcomes neglects systemic changes needed for addressing root causes of suffering. This critique highlights EA’s "measurability bias," which favors quantifiable interventions over complex, long-term social change efforts, thus potentially reinforcing existing harmful structures.
In response, some effective altruists acknowledge the need to incorporate broader social movements and systemic change within their framework. They argue that EA can be adapted to evaluate collective actions and institutional change by expanding the tools and methodologies used for assessment. However, critics argue that this approach still fails to address the deeper philosophical issues at the heart of EA.
The philosophical critique targets the abstract, "god’s eye" moral epistemology underpinning EA. This critique, drawing on arguments from philosophers like Bernard Williams, questions the idea that moral reflection can be completely detached and objective. It suggests that EA’s focus on abstract, universal judgments about doing the "most good" undermines the recognition of values that are context-dependent and require engaged understanding. Critics argue that this approach ignores the importance of moral sensitivity and context in ethical decision-making, leading to a misunderstanding of what constitutes moral action.
This philosophical critique is reinforced by the work of mid-20th-century women philosophers at Oxford, such as G.E.M. Anscombe, Philippa Foot, and Iris Murdoch, who emphasized the role of subjective understanding in recognizing values. Their views challenge EA’s assumption that moral rightness can be assessed purely through detached, quantitative measures.
The combination of institutional and philosophical critiques leads to a composite critique of EA. It argues that EA’s reliance on abstract moral reasoning prevents it from accurately assessing social actions, particularly those aimed at structural change. EA’s focus on quantifiable outcomes limits its capacity to understand the normative dimensions of social interventions, which require a more nuanced and context-sensitive approach.
Philosophical reflection on social sciences supports this critique, suggesting that social understanding is inherently normative and requires evaluative perspectives. Arguments from sociology, anthropology, and Frankfurt School theorists highlight the limitations of EA’s positivist approach, which tends to ignore the complexity and unpredictability of political and social change.
Overall, the composite critique challenges EA’s foundational assumptions, arguing that its approach to morality and social assessment is fundamentally flawed. It suggests that EA’s methods need to be reevaluated to address systemic and contextual factors that are essential for meaningful social change.
The discourse surrounding effective altruism (EA) is deeply rooted in contemporary discussions of liberation, highlighting the dissatisfaction many feel when forced to live within "false universals." These universals are ideals such as equality and freedom that seem commendable but often only serve elite perspectives, masking the realities faced by marginalized groups. Emancipatory theories across feminist, anti-racist, anti-colonial, and anti-ableist movements argue that justice cannot be achieved through new "neutral" stances but through understanding and addressing the suffering of marginalized groups. Against this backdrop, EA’s emphasis on abstract evaluation methods appears to ignore these calls for justice, often favoring quantifiable outcomes over systemic change.
In practice, charities following EA guidelines tend to prioritize simple interventions that can be measured in terms of metrics like income levels or health outcomes. This approach can inadvertently perpetuate the very institutions that cause the problems they seek to address. For example, EA-oriented animal charities often focus on welfare improvements for animals in industrial farming rather than supporting organizations that aim to transform societal attitudes towards animals. Such organizations, especially those in Black and Brown communities or in the Global South, often adopt context-sensitive, grassroots approaches that are less easily quantified but potentially more impactful in the long term.
Critics argue that EA's moral framework is flawed, drawing opposition from ethics, political theory, and critical theorists. Despite EA's alignment with neoliberal capitalism and economic efficiency, its appeal is questioned due to its failure to critically engage with the roots of the wealth disparities it seeks to address. EA encourages strategies like "earning to give," which involves working in high-paying industries to donate more, a method that inadvertently supports existing capitalist structures. This perspective fails to consider theories from care ethics, eco-feminism, and ecological Marxism, which highlight how wealth in the global North often relies on exploiting natural resources and marginalized labor as "free resources."
The narrative of EA often focuses on how the wealthy can help the poor, ignoring the systemic ties between capitalism and global suffering. This approach is criticized for being ahistorical, lacking awareness of how economic efficiency ideals can depoliticize issues and ignore the social and economic forces that contribute to suffering. In animal protectionism, EA's focus on addressing suffering in factory farms overlooks the capitalist roots of these industries. While EA's interventions can reduce animal suffering, they may also inadvertently perpetuate the systems they aim to change by failing to challenge the underlying capitalist dynamics.
EA’s attempts to address criticisms of homogeneity and lack of inclusiveness have led to initiatives emphasizing diversity within the movement. However, these efforts are often criticized for being superficial, as they do not challenge EA's foundational principles that constrain moral and political perspectives. True inclusiveness would require EA to reconsider its guiding principles, allowing for diverse viewpoints that challenge its current framework. This would involve acknowledging that certain moral and political beliefs conflict with EA’s principles and might require a reevaluation of those principles.
In summary, the critique of EA is that it is a movement deeply intertwined with neoliberal capitalism, presenting a simplistic and depoliticized approach to altruism that often fails to address the root causes of suffering and inequality. Its focus on metrics and economic efficiency overlooks the socio-political realities and systemic structures that perpetuate global injustices. The movement's gestures towards inclusivity are seen as insufficient without a fundamental shift in its moral and political framework, which remains at odds with the diverse perspectives necessary for genuine transformative change.
