EA is a modern philosophical and social movement that revolves around using evidence and reason to allegedly determine the most effective ways to do good and make the world a better place. The philosophy was founded by philosophers Peter Singer and William MacAskill, who is also the author of the 2022 book, What We Owe The Future.
Effective altruists, as they call themselves, tend to believe in maximising the amount of good that you can do in the world, coupled with an emphasis on impartiality and the global equal consideration of interests when choosing beneficiaries. In a sense, EA’s might have been directly influenced by utilitarians, who both desire to maximise metrics of goodness.
Founder and philosopher Peter Singer provides us with the ‘shallow pond argument’, in which he argues that the moral obligation to rush into a shallow pond to save a drowning kid at the cost of ruining one’s shoes is the equivalent of the moral obligation to donate to charities that reduce extreme poverty. EA entails that individuals who have the ability to give, do in fact have the moral obligation to help others. Besides this, the philosophy also involves finding the most effective way to do good, which would entail finding the most effectual and impactful charities that contribute to the most good in the world. This also often explains why effective altruists can sometimes justify their high paying low impact careers like finance so that they can later redirect the money from their salary into suitable charitable organisations, in this sense doing more “good” than what a low paying higher impact career in a non-profit organisation can probably do. Well, at least that’s the “earning to give” philosophy behind it.
EA, a philosophy that started in the late 2000s and what used to be a loose, Internet-enabled affiliation of the like-minded, is now a broadly influential faction. This is especially pertinent in Silicon Valley, which some would coin as a startup heaven. EA has expanded into a worldwide phenomenon and expanded globally with the existence of non-profit organizations ranging from EA Singapore, UK, Australia and Asia, meant to create a community of like-minded effective altruists as well as spread awareness of the philosophical movement. The global movement also currently controls philanthropic resources on the order of US$30 billion dollars, cementing its weight in the modern ecosystem as a philosophical idea with definitive legitimacy.
Is it what it’s hyped up to be?
Is EA the truly innocent altruistic endeavour it’s hyped up to be? Critically analysed, EA certainly has its pitfalls, starting with its manifestation in corporations. Sam Bankman-Fried, founder and chief executive officer of FTX, a cryptocurrency exchange firm was known for his firm commitment to the movement of EA and had mentioned that he strongly believed in the charitable causes he has funded. However, after the company had finally declared bankruptcy after a liquidity crisis of the company’s token, Mr Bankman-Fried eventually admitted that some of his political work was indeed a public relations exercise. Amounting it to a “dumb game we woke westerners play where we say all the right shibboleths [sic] and so everyone likes us”. He equated his usage of EA as a public relations stunt in conjunction with the increased demand in the world for ethical corporations and corporate social responsibility to create a favourable impression of his company amongst the public. Not to mention that Bankman-Fried, FTX, as well as its affiliates, had used stolen customer money to pour billions of dollars into risky wages that imploded before collapsing into bankruptcy, which created the whole conundrum of whether the donations made by FTX could be returned after the company has gone bankrupt. If the court indeed determines FTX as a Ponzi scheme, then the donations given to charities do indeed have to be returned given that they were themselves intended to defraud customers and investors.
“When I pledged to give away $2,000 to some brand name charity as part of some promotion related to FTX’s business, that was as much PR as anything else” Sam Bankman-Fried (Founder of FTX)
To make matters worse, it was reported that William MacAskill, an intellectual figurehead for EA, had apparently long been aware of concerns around Bankman-Fried, ranging from untrustworthiness, inappropriate sexual relationships with subordinates, and a refusal to implement standard business practices. And yet, even with burning red flags in view, had claimed not to have been able to foresee a deception of this scope.
Criticism of EA
Aside from that, EA has also drawn criticism for its other flaws. Denounced for being overly utilitarian, and consequentialist, as well as accused of prescribing an ends-justifies-the-means kind of philosophy. Even without the scandal with FTX, though let’s get to that a little later, EA did not have a sparkling clean reputation of its own. Not only that, the EA movement has also been criticised as arrogant and elitist for suggesting that effective altruists can determine just what charities are the most effective and thereby essentially ‘worthy’ of donations. Leslie Lenkowsky, a professor emeritus in public affairs and philanthropic studies at Indiana University, had claimed that the philosophy of EA can tend to make a virtue out of arrogance as well as elitism, with effective altruists seeing themselves as the only ones that are more capable of building a successful future for humanity.
“It basically says we’re a bunch of very smart philosophy graduates and we kind of know what the problems of the world are and how to solve them. So it’s very top-down” Leslie Lenkowsky
Critique of EA has also been apparent in its tie-in with the philosophy of Longtermism, which is an ethical stance that gives priority to improving the long-term future. It provides motivation to remove any existential risks to humanity but has been facing immense criticism for its relation to eugenics. Together with the immense influence of the philosophy of longtermism, with longtermists directly influencing reports from the secretary-general of the United Nations, a longtermist running the RAND Corporation, as well as the huge following of EA, its connection with eugenics is extremely worrying, as longtermism increasingly pulls the strings of both major world governments as well as business elites.
The EA movement has also been under fire for allegations of a toxic culture of sexual harassment and abuse, with Gopalakrishnan, a college student in India who once considered herself an effective altruist, was one of the seven women to tell TIME that they experienced misconduct ranging from harassment and coercion to sexual assault within the community. The victims have also alleged that the movement‘s culture has an incestuous overlap with tech-bro-dominated “rationalist groups” that created a toxic environment with a gross tolerance for sexual misconduct. Which all seems extremely counterproductive to the very fact that it’s a movement designed to spread good.
So What is EA?
The Idea Of Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Altruism
What is the deal with this growing trend of corporations going for a ‘holier than thou’ persona? In the new age of political correctness and with consumers hyperfocused on the morality of the products that they consume, the idea of corporate social responsibility has become increasingly important. Cynically speaking, I see it more as a public relations stunt. A better and more likeable brand leads to increased demand which leads to increased profits. Just include an abstract philosophical term related to morality and your desire to improve the world, and your business is set to go. Tying up ethics with marketing does in fact seem like a smarter way to increase profits, comparable to “girlboss feminism” t-shirts made using sweatshop labour in developing countries. Together with tax-deductible charitable donations and billionaire philanthropy, it appears one can buy a favourable public image with cold hard cash.
The entire idea of corporate altruism also does not seem to be an entirely brand-new phenomenon. According to Philanthropy New York, modern philanthropy was invented in the late 19th century when the United States had massive signs of wealth inequality. Industrialists like Andrew Carneige had amassed massive personal fortunes, with his net worth being $475 million in his final years. This, of course, generated much discontent amongst the populace. He then decided to respond by creating private foundations for his charitable endeavours. However, in exchange for this, there is an expectation for him to not get criticised for a lot of his actions like unsafe working practices for his workers as well as his union-busting endeavours. Andrew Carneige exploited his workers severely, subjecting them to long hours, a dangerous workplace as well as low pay. His workers worked gruelling days for 12 hours per day, every day of the week and were only paid just above the poverty line of $500 per year. After workers tried to strike in response to terrible working conditions, Carnegie directed that the strike be met with violence from the police, killing some of the workers. Sounds familiar?
Corporate altruism as a way to ease discontent amongst the lower classes has existed since the 19th century, with modern-day renditions becoming companies like Apple now. The company extends its support to the work of food banks and other organizations that address food disparity through its Strengthen Local Communities grant program but still withstands accusations of its involvement with sweatshop factories to produce its electronic gadgets for the West. Same idea, just a few hundred years later and morphed into a global tech company. In a similar way, EA as a movement is also extremely business-friendly, which makes sense as to why it has close ties to cryptocurrency, a restatement of an old idea that the best way to aid people is through the free market. EA has been said to be a fusion of those exact 19th-century ideals but packaged with modern development economics and ethical philosophy, but in a sense, with more “woke language” in this inherently politically correct culture.
Other philosophical movements that corporations have been aligning themselves with lately seem to be stakeholder capitalism, which proposes that corporations should serve the interests of all their stakeholders and not just their shareholders. This can include investors, owners, employees, vendors, customers, and the general public. Utilised by renowned companies like Johnson & Johnson, Google and eBay, the movement has been gaining traction. Criticism of stakeholder capitalism unfortunately also attracts familiar criticism, that it’s just an easy marketing tool, a public relations stunt, and a way for companies to make themselves look good without doing anything to realistically actually benefit employees, customers, or the community. There have been claims that companies would use arbitrary concepts of social purpose and cause marketing as a tool to distract from the fact that they are not actually doing anything to improve the lives of their employees or the planet.
On a positive note, there have been anecdotes of what seem to be genuinely altruistic corporations. Outdoor clothing brand Patagonia’s Yvon Chouinard announced that 98% of Patagonia’s shares would be given away to a trust that would use their future profits to help combat climate change. Patagonia’s founder has often been enshrined as the height of philanthropy as he eschews glamorous displays of wealth and does not appreciate the media’s coverage of his fortune. An altruist or a stakeholder capitalist, whatever you might call it, Patagonia had also restructured to become a benefit corporation, which are businesses that meet the highest standards of verified social and environmental performance, public transparency as well as legal accountability in order to balance profit and purpose. The number of Benefit Corporations has also increased significantly after the corporation Patagonia got certified, with other corporations following its example. When Patagonia was first certified in 2007, there were only 500 Benefit Corporations, but there are over 5834 Benefit Corporations now in more than 85 countries.
However, though founder Yvon Chounaird is sincere in his environmentalism causes, his act of what seemed to be pure altruism could also be the cause as to how Chouinard can avoid paying as much as $700m in federal capital gains tax, as Bloomberg explains. This can also help Yvon Chouinard to heavily avoid the US estate and gift tax, which is a 40% levy on large fortunes when they’re potentially transferred to heirs. This definitely puts a damper on the idea of genuine altruism by the founder of Patagonia, though his donations do actually result in actual societal benefits.
All in all, it is still too early to say if these instances of corporate altruism are just a passing fad and if they can actually bring about any good in the world. Though just like anything that burns too bright and is covered with shining lights, it’s best to critically analyse before making any snap judgements.
