Francis Devlin: A response to criticisms of Effective Altruism

There are valid and interesting criticisms of EA, for example, relating to EA’s tendency to instrumentalism, individualism, and “bias in favour of quantifiable material outcomes”. However, I do not feel that such criticisms came through in a compelling way in the readings for Week Eight. The authors seemed to not fully understand EA and characterise the movement as little more than “Wall Street + bed nets”. In this post, I give a brief response to each of the week’s articles and highlight which I find to be the more and less convincing criticisms of the movement. 

First, credit where credit is due – Danaher’s Effective Altruism: A Taxonomy of Objections article was clear, balanced and informative as were his subsequent articles on the topic:  Justice-Related Objections to Effective Altruism, Is Effective Altruism Methodologically Biased? and Is Effective Altruism actually Effective? He evidently has a strong grasp of the principles underpinning EA and has a nuanced understanding of their limitations. Only the first of the three articles mentioned above was included in the readings for Week Eight but if I were designing the reading list for the next fellowship round, I would consider including some of the latter three as they engage with the EA movement as a whole and the values underpinning it, rather than overly focussing on the Earning to Give prescription.  

That is not to say, however, that no valid criticisms relating to the Earning to Give model came through in the readings. Brooks, for instance, offered a word of caution to EAs considering signing up to a life on Wall Street, suggesting that if their heart lies with helping the global poor they should be wary of the cognitive dissonance involved in surrounding themselves with the global rich. He highlighted that pursuing Earning to Give runs the risk of one’s life becoming a means rather than an end in itself, stressed how being surrounded by the high-finance lifestyle may well change one’s personality and values and advised instead to work directly with the global poor if that is where one’s heart lies. This word of caution is certainly worth bearing in mind when contemplating what sort of life one wants to lead. It does not, however, contend with the greater potential for impact one has with a six-figure salary compared to the impact of an average aid worker. Rather, it is a discussion of the sustainability of one’s lifestyle choices. For those sensitive to Brooks’ warning, there are possible middle ways, where one can achieve high-impact and engage in direct work. For instance, it might be possible to negotiate a contract with one’s boss that would allow working 9-11 months per year in said lucrative industry and to spend 1-3 months of each year abroad engaged directly in aid work. If that option not feasible, an alternative could be to maximise one’s income for the first 5-10 years of one’s career and invest a large portion of the earnings, and thereafter opt for direct work instead. Once engaged in direct work, one could draw a portion of the yearly interest from the investment pot to donate. Alternatively, it might make more financial sense to create an Earning to Give pension with those early career earnings and to only draw from the pension for donations when it has matured to the tune of a few hundred thousand dollars or couple of million dollars. Neither of these suggestions are perfect but they may present a middle-way for some or at least provoke some though.

Deaton also wrote skeptically of Earning to Give, suggesting instead that western students ought to “go to Africa, become citizens, and cast their lot with those they want to help”. He adds “That is how they can save the lives of African kids” but does not specify why or how becoming citizens of African countries would save lives. Presumably, it has something to do with better understanding the specific conditions on the ground in the communities you want to help. Of course, there is logic to this – donations based on a limited understanding of the local dynamics could precipitate ineffective interventions or could prolong existing problems, for example, by inadvertently funding local tyrants. However, I am not convinced that the best way for me to contribute to alleviating global poverty or improving global health would be to “cast [my] lot in with those [I] want to help”. Nor do financial contributions from distant donors necessarily have to prop up warlords. For example, the most efficacious charities, by GiveWell’s standards, are likely to also have a decent understanding of the local situation, at least insofar as it allows them to save lives via health interventions. Their understanding of the situation on the ground will to a degree presuppose the effectiveness of the intervention. If that proves to be wishful thinking and it comes to light that the Malaria Consortium has been inadvertently perpetuating dictatorial rule or causing some other unintended harm, then I imagine GiveWell would promptly remove them from its rankings and reassess its criteria. After all, GiveWell does welcome criticism and continually seek to improve its methods. 

As a donator, I do not need to understand the local situation in the recipient communities, much less “go to Africa and become [a] citizen”. I can outsource this kind of work to GiveWell and its recommended charities since they are infinitely better equipped than I am to conduct such work. If I am considering Earning to Give, my comparative advantage is more likely to be the fact that I can earn a professional salary and donate a large chunk of it. Much of the appeal of EA is in its simplicity. I do not need to “cast my lot” in with those I want to help to actually help them. Doing so, may even be less helpful compared to donating my money. Just as I do not need to be poor to to appreciate that poverty is miserable, I do not need to understand the local specifics of the community I want to help. I just need confidence that GiveWell does not recommend charities whose work creates intended harms. 

There are also lifestyle benefits to Earning to Give that Brooks fails to acknowledge. Consider for instance, that a large portion of graduates will by default go to work in the private sector. For many, this presents a less unusual, and more appealing, lifestyle compared to upping sticks in favour of Myanmar. It would allow me, for example, to live a life similar to that of my peers, live in a familiar culture, in a city near my friends and family, and enjoy the benefits of living in a rich liberal democracy. In effect, I can maintain what is to the average person interested in EA, a normal lifestyle. Practically speaking, a movement is more likely to achieve sustained success if its adherents are able to maintain stable, comfortable and relatively normal lives. For all the criticism Wall Street receives, it is far more likely to offer that than handing out bed nets in-person in Uganda is. 

Rubenstein criticises Singer for comparing donating to a cost-effective charity with a firefighter saving lives directly as it encourages students to think of themselves as saviours. I am yet to meet an unbearably sanctimonious EA with a Messiah Complex. Maybe I have not met enough EAs yet but so far, they seem nice, normal enough and humble. For example, EA articles often provide plenty of caveats, acknowledge their mistakes and welcome criticism of their methods. In any case, if it can be said with confidence that a donation to a GiveWell approved charity contributes to saving lives, then I do not think it would be unjustified to for donators to go around feeling pleased with themselves. And if they were to gently point out to others that they could do the same if they refrained from buying the very latest iPhone and instead donated some of their excess income to charity then that would not be such a bad thing either if it saved lives. In that case, a saviour mentality would at some level be justified, providing of course that it did not transform into an insufferable holier-than-thou complex. 

However, Rubenstein adds that a saviour mentality causes people to neglect “rich people’s role in contributing to and benefiting from [poverty].” It is not uncommon to criticise EA for its failure to engage with the structural problems apparently inherent to capitalism, as displayed by left-leaning criticisms from Lynch, Srinivasan and Snow. For me, the fact that EA does not seek to overthrow capitalism is a plus. In politically divisive times where it can sometimes feel hard to avoid politics, one of the things that I appreciate the most about EA is that it has not been consumed by the politics of the day. As someone who identifies strongly with neither the conservative nor the left-wing tribe in my country, the apolitical and international nature of EA is something I value immensely. If EA were to become politicised, it would lose some of what is uniquely valuable about it. If it became, for instance, just another anti-capitalism movement it would cease to be as attractive for many of its current supporters, myself included. For instance, I do not consider the finance sector to be inherently evil, nor do I think it is accurate to view global capitalism as zero-sum (i.e. I am not convinced that the global south is poor first and foremost because the global north is rich – to me, that fails to acknowledge the global trend of poverty alleviation which has taken place over recent decades and continues to do so), I am not overly sanguine or naïve about notions of benevolent capitalism, but think campaigning to overthrow it is misguided, if not dangerous, due to a lack of viable alternatives and the fact that I cannot see a historical period in which more people have been better off than they are today. However, I am optimistic that EA will not give in to calls for revolution, since overhauling global economics and politics would not score highly on the EA tractability criterion. That being said, if conducting a cost-benefit analysis on the value of overthrowing capitalism were to become feasible, EA and myself may be forced to reconsider. 

Linked to the criticism that EA is an all-too-willing bedfellow of modern capitalism, is the charge that EA fails to value systemic change in general. This criticism often stems, however, from the tendency to equate EA with little more than “Wall Street + bed nets”. This criticism has already been addressed comprehensively, with ample examples cited of EA work toward systemic change, for example, the work on global priorities research, improving international peacebuilding institutions, lobbying for reform and regulation in the fields of emerging technologies, animal welfare, immigration, criminal justice reform, international aid, charity and bio-risk. Likewise, many EAs value the idea of systemically improving institutions for regulating international financial crime, greenhouse gas emissions and global health. There can be a tendency in EA to go for low-hanging fruit, and for good reason, but there is nothing in principle about EA that pits it against systemic change. Indeed, EAs are already advised to pursue systemic change. The way I see it, this charge against EA is borne out of a misunderstanding of the movement and its underlying principles. 

Of course, there are many valid and interesting criticisms of EA. It is, however, unfortunate that such criticisms did not come through strongly in the Week 8 readings. The criticisms focused disproportionately on EA’s Earning to Give prescription and did not engage in a satisfying manner with the broader movement of EA and its philosophical underpinnings. In my eyes, Danaher was the one author from Week 8 who did a good job of this. My humble suggestion would be to include more of his writings in Week 8 or readings of a similar standard which criticise EA in an engaging way and understand the movement as more than “Wall Street + bed nets”. 

———

I'm Francis. I am originally from Bradford, a city in the north of England. I study international relations and history in London. In my studies, I have been focusing on China's relations with the west and the role of disruptive technologies in international security. Having studied politics and history, I feel drawn to the great power conflict cause area. Though I am also interested in international financial fraud as a potential and neglected EA cause area. When I am not studying I enjoy trying to speak German and sitting in conservatories when it's raining.