No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 July 2019
In this article I provide a conceptual analysis of an underexplored issue in the debate about effective altruism: its theory of effectiveness. First, I distinguish effectiveness from efficiency and claim that effective altruism understands effectiveness through the lens of efficiency. Then, I discuss the limitations of this approach in particular with respect to the charge that it is incapable of supporting structural change. Finally, I propose an expansion of the notion of effectiveness of effective altruism by referring to the debate in political philosophy about realism and the practical challenge of normative theories. I argue that effective altruism, both as a social movement and as a conceptual paradigm, would benefit from clarifying its ideal, taking into account the role of institutions, and expanding its idea of feasibility.
1 MacAskill, W., Doing Good Better: Effective Altruism and How You Can Make a Difference (London, 2016)Google Scholar; McMahan, J., ‘Philosophical Critiques of Effective Altruism’, The Philosophers’ Magazine 73 (2016): pp. 92–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pummer, T., ‘Whether and Where to Give’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 44 (2016), pp. 77–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Singer, P., The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically (New Haven and London, 2015)Google Scholar; Pellegrino, G., ‘Effective Altruism and the Altruistic Repugnant Conclusion’, Essays in Philosophy 18 (2017), pp. 1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 MacAskill, Doing Good Better, p. 135.
3 See in particular MacAskill, Doing Good Better.
4 Pallotta, D., ‘“Efficiency” Measures Miss the Point’, The Effective Altruism Handbook, ed. Carey, R. (Oxford, 2015), pp. 32–4Google Scholar.
5 On these critiques, see Lisa Herzog, ‘Can “Effective Altruism” Really Change the World?’, Open Democracy, 22 February 2016, <https://www.opendemocracy.net/transformation/lisa-herzog/can-effective-altruism-really-change-world>; and Srinivasan, A., ‘Stop the Robot Apocalypse’, London Review of Books 37 (2015), pp. 3–6Google Scholar. For a more detailed analysis of why EA is not equipped to understand the importance of structural change, see T. Syme, ‘Charity vs. Revolution: Effective Altruism and the Systemic Change Objection’, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice (2019), pp. 1–28, doi: 10.1007/s10677-019-09979-5.
6 Berkey, B., ‘The Institutional Critique of Effective Altruism’, Utilitas 30 (2018), pp. 143–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 On this see E. Clough, ‘Effective Altruism's Political Blind Spot’, Boston Review 14 July (2015).
8 On this see Wenar, L., ‘Poverty is No Pond: Challenges for the Affluent’, Giving Well: The Ethics of Philanthropy, ed. Illingworth, P., Pogge, T. and Wenar, L. (Oxford, 2010), pp. 104–32Google Scholar.
9 Berkey, ‘The Institutional Critique’, p. 162.
10 MacAskill, Doing Good Better, pp. 114–21.
11 Gabriel, I., ‘Effective Altruism and its Critics’, Journal of Applied Philosophy 34 (2017), pp. 457–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 The commitment to marginal effectiveness also has the paradoxical effect of suggesting that people abandon a previously ‘underdog’ cause once it becomes popular and begins to have major effects. See Kissel, J., ‘Effective Altruism and Anti-Capitalism: An Attempt at Reconciliation’, Essays in Philosophy 18 (2017), pp. 1–23, at 19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13 Epictetus, Handbook of Epictetus (Indianapolis, 1983), §1: 11Google Scholar.
14 Cohen, G. A., Rescuing Justice and Equality (Cambridge, MA and London, 2008)Google Scholar.
15 Rossi, E., ‘Facts, Principles and (Real) Politics’, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (2016), pp. 505–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
16 Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice, rev. edn. (Cambridge, MA, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
17 Gilabert, P. and Lawford-Smith, H., ‘Political Feasibility: A Conceptual Exploration’, Political Studies 60 (2012), pp. 809–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18 Lawford-Smith, H., ‘Understanding Political Feasibility’, The Journal of Political Philosophy 21 (2013), pp. 243–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
19 Rawls, J., Justice as Fairness: A Restatement (Cambridge, MA, 2001), p. 3Google Scholar.
21 Schmidtz, D., ‘Islands in a Sea of Obligation: Limits of the Duty to Rescue’, Law and Philosophy 19 (2000), pp. 683–705Google Scholar.
22 Tomlin, P., ‘Survey Article: Internal Doubts about Cohen's Rescue of Justice’, The Journal of Political Philosophy 18 (2010), pp. 228–47, at 231CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
23 Singer, The Most Good, p. 50. It is worth remarking that this positive evaluation of capitalism is conditional and that Singer was previously more critical of it.
24 McMahan, ‘Philosophical Critiques’, p. 95.
25 In addition to individual obligations, people also have collective obligations. On this see Dietz, A., ‘Effective Altruism and Collective Obligations’, Utilitas 31 (2019), pp. 106–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
26 I am grateful to Chiara Cordelli, Rainer Ebert, Josh Milburn, Selina O'Doherty, Gianfranco Pellegrino and to two journal's anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on previous versions of this article.