A few years ago William MacAskill was all the rage. His effective altruism movement was riding high. Many of the rich and powerful endorsed his views. Things have gone off the boil a bit since. So, with an eye for being behind the trend today I’ll look his Doing Good Better ideas. I’ll also set up a contrast between effective and strategic altruism. Both have the potential to make the world different but one is a bit more relevant for businesses and one a bit more relevant once you have made your billions.
What Is MacAskill’s Big Idea?
In many ways, the big idea is quite obvious. When we try and do good shouldn’t we try and do the most good?
Effective altruism is about asking, “How can I make the biggest difference I can?” and using evidence and careful reasoning to try and find an answer.
MacAskill, 2015, page 11
I wholeheartedly agree with his basic idea. Thinking deeply about how to help, rather than just doing what feels right, makes sense. If you can genuinely increase the amount of good you do, the people helped gain more, so your spreadsheet skills make the world better. Effective altruism is about aligning economic thinking around deployment of scarce resources with charitable donations.
Applying Effective Altruism Thinking
There are of course challenges. MacAskill focuses much of his thinking on health because this has better metrics. We can have a pretty good prediction of the extra years of life an intervention gains. We can adjust this for quality of life. Medical people do this and it seems reasonable to me even if never perfect. A lot of this leads the reader towards donating to on-going health programs in very poor countries, rather than charity in the rich world or in response to disasters. I buy a lot of his arguments; I’m a numbers person. That said, even I worry that some things are harder to put into numbers than others. (I’m not against the ideas, I just worry a little about the quality of the application).
Challenges And Values
MacAskill isn’t afraid to pose challenges. This isn’t a bad thing as it can get you thinking. If you care about climate change what are the most effective actions to take. Maybe you shouldn’t buy more expensive products that have reduced emissions. Instead, would it be better to buy the cheaper more greenhouse gas intensive products and donate the savings to people planting trees. It becomes a data question which is one of the reasons why many spreadsheet loving people embraced the idea. Wouldn’t it be better if we took more effective actions?
Where we get the biggest challenge is when values come into play and we start thinking about impacts on wider society. If you are passionately opposed to the death penalty this might be something you feel we should fund trying to stop. This is despite the fact that in the US there are only a modest number of people that are murdered by the state each year. Objectively, you are very likely to be able to save many more people by focusing on health in the developing world. Still, some in America will feel that improving US justice is “their responsibility”. Similarly, how can you compare a charity that preserves scenic landscapes with another that helps donkeys? You can’t objectively value a donkey as worth, say, four trees.
Problems From Success
MacAskill’s main challenges in many ways stem from his success. Preaching the message of changing the world through application of data made him a bit of a celebrity to tech bros. When this happened some of these types, naturally, starting thinking about discount rates. An argument became maybe the most effective thing was to help people in the far future — space travel could be altruism if it could transform the lives of many people in the future. It can get a bit weird quickly.
MacAskill wants to do the most good possible and so his idea is to apply economic thought. This generally will help you get where you want to go most efficiently but it won’t tell you where to go and certainly won’t tell you what the future will be.
Even more unfortunately Sam Bankman-Fried became a high-profile supporter before being nicked for a massive fraud. Not Macaskill’s fault but it doesn’t help when your acolytes go to jail.
Effective And Strategic Altruism
It is worth noting the difference between effective and strategic altruism (in the business sense). Effective altruism looks at the way to achieve the most for the recipient with what you donate, often money. This often involves giving to very poor people. This is especially effective because the very poor have lots of needs that aren’t that expensive to address but they still can’t pay for them personally. Such donations are likely to be completely unconnected to the donors’ interests or experience. You might not know anything about a tropical disease but helping eradicate this might achieve the most your donation can.
Strategic altruism looks at how donating can be mutually beneficial. Here the donor looks to get something from it. This isn’t a bad thing. If the donors get something this allows the donations to continue, to be more sustainable. So, a strategic donor is more likely to adopt a popular cause that fits with their mission. A company who makes outdoor clothing gives to the environment. A diaper manufacturer gives away diapers. To be useful the cause donated to must be worthwhile, but companies can improve their reputation through the donations and so find a way to fund the donation. Strategic altruism seeks to ensure that there is a gain for both parties.
For an example of strategic altruism see here.
Read: William MacAskill (2015) Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Make a Difference, Avery
