I was reminded of effective altruism by the notoriety of Samuel Bankman-Fried Fraud. According to the Wikipedia article about effective altruism, Fried/Fraud
became associated with the effective altruism movement [in 2019], announcing that his goal was to "donate as much as [he] can". After [FTX’s] collapse in late 2022, [his] relationship with effective altruism has been called into question as a public relations strategy.
This comes as no surprise to me, inasmuch as effective altruism is founded on two mistaken ideas.
The first mistaken idea is that altruism is an unselfish psychological urge. I’ll say no more here about that mistake. Just see my post “Egoism and Altruism”.
The second mistaken idea is that charity (a more accurate word than altruism) is more effective if (in the words of the Wikipedia article) those who give money to help others
"us[e] evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible, and tak[e] action on that basis"….
Popular cause priorities within effective altruism include global health and development, social inequality, animal welfare, and risks to the survival of humanity over the long-term future. Effective altruism emphasizes impartiality and the global equal consideration of interests when choosing beneficiaries [e.g., distant Africans are the same as one’s countrymen and kinsmen].
So much for “evidence” and “reason”, given that combating “climate change” — the ultimate pseudo-scientific fraud — is a favored use of effective altruists’ money (e.g., Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos).
Everything else (global health, social inequality, animal welfare, etc.) is the stuff that mass-marketed charities are made of. Emotion rules decisions to give to such charities, not “evidence” and “reason”. How do I know? Because there’s no way to equate such causes. They’re of a piece with the mythical “social welfare function”.
If ever there was an effective altruist, it was Andrew Carnegie, the “robber baron” who made a huge fortune by pioneering the mass-production of steel. That was his most effectively altruistic accomplishment because he made his fortune by making things that bettered the lives of countless persons in America and overseas.
On top of that, he endowed 3,000 public libraries (I remember one of them well), museums, art galleries, Carnegie Hall, a university, and various scientific endeavors. He also funded some institutions and efforts in the name of “world peace”, which just goes to show that anyone can be foolish in one way or another. But the bulk of his philanthropy was practical and actually uplifting (the libraries, galleries, museums, Carnegie Hall, and the university).
What about people in distant lands? Well, if you feel sorry for them and can find a charity that won’t divert most of your donation to bloated salaries, grandiose buildings, and costly marketing campaigns go for it. But even then don’t expect great or even small miracles — there haven’t been any in my lifetime.
The conditions that cause poverty and oppression in distant lands are rooted in the geography, politics, and culture of such places. Those conditions can’t be altered by charity or magical thinking. But magical thinking is precisely what animates the loony leftists who are the main proponents of effective altruism.