Effective altruism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from High impact philanthropy)
Jump to: navigation, search

Effective altruism is a philosophy and social movement that applies evidence and reason to determining the most effective ways to improve the world. Effective altruism encourages individuals to consider all causes and actions, and then act in the way that brings about the greatest positive impact, based on their values.[1] It is this broad, scientific approach that distinguishes effective altruism from traditional altruism or charity. While a substantial proportion of effective altruists have focused on the nonprofit sector, the philosophy of effective altruism applies much more broadly, e.g., to prioritizing the scientific projects, companies, and policy initiatives which can be estimated to save and improve the most lives.[2] Notable people associated with the movement include philosopher Peter Singer,[3] Facebook cofounder Dustin Moskovitz,[4] Oxford based philosopher William MacAskill[5] and researcher Toby Ord.[6] The movement is made up of many chapters[7] and organizations[8] around the world. One institution researching along similar lines is the Copenhagen Consensus.


Peter Singer is a prominent advocate of effective altruism.

Effective altruism differs from other philanthropic practices because of its emphasis on quantitatively comparing charitable causes and interventions, with the goal of maximizing certain moral values. In this way it is similar to consequentialism, which some leaders of the movement explicitly endorse.[9]

Cause prioritization[edit]

Although there is a growing emphasis on effectiveness and evidence among nonprofits, this is usually done with a single cause in mind, such as education or climate change.[10] Effective altruists, however, seek to compare the relative importance of different causes.[11]

Effective altruists attempt to choose the highest priority causes based on whether activities in each cause area could efficiently advance broad goals, such as increasing human or animal welfare. They then focus their attention on interventions in high priority areas. Several organizations are performing cause prioritization research.[12][13]

Some priorities of effective altruists include: poverty in the developing world, the suffering of animals in factory farms, and humanity's long-term future.[11]


When possible, effective altruists seek to identify charities that are highly cost-effective, meaning that they achieve a large benefit for a given amount of money. For example, they select health interventions on the basis of their impact as measured by lives saved per dollar, quality-adjusted life years (QALY) saved per dollar, or disability-adjusted life years (DALY) averted per dollar. The DALY is a key measure employed by the United Nations World Health Organization in such publications as its Global Burden of Disease.[14][15] This measure of disease burden is expressed as the number of years lost due to ill health, disability or early death.

Effective altruism organizations use randomized controlled trials as a primary form of evidence. Randomized controlled trials are considered to be a reliable form of scientific evidence in the hierarchy of evidence that influences healthcare policy and practice because randomized controlled trials reduce spurious causality and bias. Certain medical interventions, such as vaccination, are already backed by high-quality medical research, and so there is a lower burden of proof for charities doing these types of programs.[16] The following academic groups do randomized controlled trials on other types of interventions as well: Poverty Action Lab[17] and Innovations for Poverty Action.[18]

Effective altruism organizations claim that some charities are far more effective than others, either because some do not achieve their goals or because of variability in the cost of achieving those goals.[19][20] The health improvements of high impact projects can be 100 times more effective than low impact projects.[21]

Deprioritizing overhead costs[edit]

Traditional charity evaluation has often been based on prioritizing charities with minimal overhead costs and high proportional spending on projects. However, effective altruist organizations reject this standard as simplistic and flawed.[22][23] Dan Pallotta[24] argues that charities should be encouraged to spend more on fundraising if it ensures they increase the amount they can allocate to the charitable service overall. Additionally, a study by Dean Karlan "found that the most effective charities spent more of their budget on administrative cost than their less-effective competitors",[25] presumably because spending on administration costs may include analyses of whether a particular activity is effective or not. Thus, the extra spending on admin could lead to resources being focused on the best activities.

Marginal impact[edit]

The effective altruist charity evaluator GiveWell has emphasized the importance of evaluating each charity's room for more funding.[26] In general, effective altruists believe that selecting a cause to contribute to should be based on the marginal value that resources would accomplish at the margin, rather than based on what has already been accomplished.


Effective altruists reject the view that some lives are intrinsically more valuable than others. For example, they believe that a person in a developing country has equal value to a person in one's own community. As Peter Singer notes:

It makes no difference whether the person I can help is a neighbour's child ten yards away from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away. [...] The moral point of view requires us to look beyond the interests of our own society. Previously [...], this may hardly have been feasible, but it is quite feasible now. From the moral point of view, the prevention of the starvation of millions of people outside our society must be considered at least as pressing as the upholding of property norms within our society.[27]

In addition, many effective altruists think that future generations have equal moral value to currently existing people, so they focus on reducing existential risks to humanity. Others believe that the interests of non-human animals should be accorded the same moral weight as similar interests of humans and work to prevent the suffering of animals, such as those raised in factory farms.[28]

Comparative wealth[edit]

Many effective altruists believe that, as formulated by Peter Singer, "if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it".[27] Anyone with an income of above $52,000 PPP is in the 1% richest people globally.[29] Therefore, many effective altruists donate a significant portion of their income to highly effective charities, since doing so would not cause them to give up important purchases.

Counterfactual reasoning[edit]

Effective altruists argue that counterfactual reasoning is important to determine which course of action maximizes positive impact. Many people assume that the best way to help people is through direct methods, such as working for a charity or providing social services.[30][31] Since charities and social-service providers usually can find people willing to work for them, effective altruists compare the amount of good somebody does in a conventional altruistic career to how much good would have been done had the next-best candidate been hired for the position. According to this reasoning, the impact of choosing a conventional altruistic career may be smaller than it appears.[32]

The earning to give strategy has been proposed as a possible strategy for effective altruists. This strategy involves choosing to work in high-paying careers with the explicit goal of donating large sums of money to charity. Benjamin Todd and William MacAskill have argued that the marginal impact of one's potentially unethical actions in such a lucrative career would be small, since someone else would have done them regardless, while the impact of donations would be large.[33][34]

Room for more funding[edit]

The charity evaluator GiveWell has popularized the concept of room for more funding, meaning that effective altruists should consider not just which charities have the highest impact relative to cost, but also whether additional contributions to the charity will substantially increase the charity's impact.[35] The concept is also used by other effective altruism organizations such as Giving What We Can and Animal Charity Evaluators.[36][37] The concept has also been discussed in the Expositor, a publication of Trinity University; The Chronicle of Philanthropy; and The Huffington Post, each citing the work of GiveWell.[38][39][40]


Career selection[edit]

Selection of one's career is an important determinant of the amount of good one does, both directly (through the services one provides to the world) and indirectly (through the ways one directs the money earned based on the career). 80,000 Hours seeks to provide career advice to people with effective altruist goals to help them maximize their positive impact, and claims that careers should be selected based both on the immediate impact (including impact through the job and by donating money earned) and building career capital (that can be used to do other things later).[41]


Effective altruism encourages significant charitable donation. Advocacy focuses on increasing the amount that people donate or identifying nonprofits that best meet the criteria of effective altruism. Charity evaluator GiveWell focuses largely on the latter issue, by identifying the best giving opportunities and the extent of room for more funding available to them. Giving What We Can aims to address both aspects: its pledge encourages people to commit donating 10% of their income, and it recommends particular charities to which to donate.

Many effective altruists donate substantially more than is typical in their society. Some believe it is a moral duty to alleviate suffering through donations if the purchases that one forgoes to donate do not cause comparable suffering to oneself.[27] This leads some of them to lead a frugal lifestyle in order to give more. Other effective altruists seek to donate more by increasing their earnings.

Cause priorities[edit]

Effective altruism is in principle open to helping in whichever areas will do the most good.[11] In practice, people in the effective altruist movement have prioritized the following four focus areas:[1][11]

Global poverty alleviation[edit]

Global poverty alleviation has been a focus of some of the earliest and most prominent organizations associated with effective altruism. Charity evaluator GiveWell has argued that the value per unit money is greatest for international poverty alleviation and developing world health issues,[20] and its leading recommendations have been in these domains (Against Malaria Foundation, Schistosomiasis Control Initiative, Deworm the World Initiative, and (earlier) VillageReach in global health, and GiveDirectly for direct unconditional cash transfers). Giving What We Can, The Life You Can Save and other organizations also focus on global poverty alleviation to greater or lesser extents, as did Peter Singer's book The Life You Can Save (the origin of the organization), which argued that people have a moral imperative to donate more because of the existence of extreme poverty.

While much of the initial focus was on direct strategies such as health interventions, cash transfers, micropayments and microloans, there has also been interest in more systematic social, economic, and political reform that would facilitate larger long-term poverty reduction.[42]

Animal welfare[edit]

Further information: Animal welfare

Many effective altruists believe that reducing animal suffering is a worthwhile goal, and that, at the current margin, there are low-cost ways of accomplishing this. The main organization in this area that is also connected with effective altruism is Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE, formerly called Effective Animal Activism), which evaluates and compares various animal charities.

There is significant variation in the degree to which effective altruists concern themselves with the welfare of non-human animals. Most oppose practices such as factory farming; many promote vegetarian or vegan diets. Some are additionally concerned about reducing wild animal suffering, even to the extent of the suffering of non-vertebrates such as insects.[43] Some effective altruists support compassionate stewardship of nature to prevent or reduce the suffering of free-living nonhuman animals.[44][45]

Far future and global catastrophic risks[edit]

Further information: Global catastrophic risk

Some effective altruists believe that the far future is extremely important. Specifically they believe that the total value of any meaningful metric (wealth, potential for suffering, potential for happiness, etc.) summed up over future generations, far exceeds the value for people living today, an argument that has been highlighted in the work of two philosophers closely associated with the effective altruism movement:[1]

  • Nick Bostrom has written about the "astronomical waste" in terms of value lost to future generations due to delayed or botched technological development today.[46]
  • In his Ph.D. thesis, philosopher Nick Beckstead has highlighted the overwhelming importance of the far future and therefore of any steps we can take in the present that would affect the trajectory of the far future.[47]

Furthermore, the importance of addressing existential risks such as dangers associated with nanotechnology, biotechnology, the advanced artificial intelligence and global warming is often highlighted and the subject of active research. Bostrom states:[48]

Some organizations that work actively on research and advocacy for improving the far future, and have connections with the effective altruist movement, are the Future of Humanity Institute, Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, and Future of Life Institute. In addition, the Machine Intelligence Research Institute is focused on the more narrow goal of developing friendly artificial intelligence before unfriendly artificial intelligence.


Some effective altruists seek to have a large impact by enhancing the capacity of the effective altruist community itself.[49] Common causes include outreach (increasing the number of people involved in effective altruism), movement enhancement (making effective altruist organizations more effective or capable), and cause research (doing research on which causes are the most effective.)



Further information: GiveWell

Charity evaluator GiveWell started in 2007. Its focus is on identifying the most promising causes and charities to donate to, and most of its recommendations have been in the area of developing world health and poverty alleviation.[50] GiveWell is a part of the effective altruism movement,[51] and its ability to move funds has been improved by the promotional efforts of other effective altruist organizations.[52]

In September 2011, GiveWell announced GiveWell Labs for exploration of more speculative causes[53] In August 2014, a name change to "Open Philanthropy Project" was announced. The Open Philanthropy Project would be a collaboration between GiveWell and Good Ventures, a philanthropic foundation founded by Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz and his wife Cari Tuna.[54][55]

Giving What We Can[edit]

Further information: Giving What We Can

Giving What We Can (GWWC) is a community of people interested in maximizing the good they can do in the world through donations. Founded in November 2009 by moral philosopher Toby Ord, the organization's focus is on causes related to the alleviation of global poverty.[56] Although GWWC does some in-house research evaluating causes and charities, it largely relies on research by other organizations such as GiveWell.[57] The Giving What We Can pledge requires people to donate at least 10% of their income to the causes that they believe are the most effective. Giving What We Can is run by the charity the Centre for Effective Altruism.

80,000 Hours[edit]

Further information: 80,000 Hours

80,000 Hours is an Oxford, UK-based organization that conducts research on careers with positive social impact and provides career advice. The group emphasizes that the positive impact of choosing a certain occupation should be measured by the amount of additional good that is done as a result of this choice, not by the amount of good directly done. It considers indirect ways of making a difference, such as earning a high salary in a conventional career and donating a portion of it, as well as direct ways, such as scientific research. 80,000 Hours is run by the charity the Centre for Effective Altruism. The name is taken from the 80,000 hours a healthy person will work in their career.

Raising for Effective Giving[edit]

Further information: Raising for Effective Giving

Raising for Effective Giving (REG) is a fundraising organization that aims to direct charitable donations from successful poker and other sports players towards some of the charities favored by effective altruists. REG members pledge to donate at least 2% of their gross tournament winnings and at least 3% of their profit from cash games every quarter[58][59] to charities with unusually high cost-effectiveness.[60] In 2016, REG expanded its fundraising activities to the finance industry.[61]

Other organizations[edit]

A number of other charitable organizations have been associated with the effective altruism movement:

  • Future of Humanity Institute, a research center focused on predicting and preventing risks to human civilization.
  • Good Ventures, a private foundation co-founded by Cari Tuna and Dustin Moskovitz.[62] which has close ties with Givewell.[63]
  • Innovations for Poverty Action, a research non-profit which has carried out rigorous randomised control trials on several interventions recommended by GiveWell, including deworming, free mosquito net distribution, and unconditional cash transfers.
  • The Life You Can Save, a movement which advocates fighting extreme poverty by donating to 16 charities which it considers highly effective charities.
  • Effective Altruism Australia is a tax-deductible charity in Australia[64] that partners with charities recommended by charity evaluators such as GiveWell and Giving What We Can as the most effective at alleviating poverty.[65]

Recommended charities[edit]

Charity evaluator GiveWell recommends the following charities:[66]

Of these charities, AMF, SCI, and DtWI are also recommended by Giving What We Can. GWWC does not recommend GiveDirectly but does recommend Project Healthy Children.[67] The Life You Can Save recommends 16 charities.

History as a social movement[edit]

The ideas behind effective altruism have been present in practical ethics, particularly consequentialist ethics, for a long time, and have been reflected in the writings of philosophers such as Peter Singer and Peter Unger. However, a movement identifying with the name 'effective altruism' itself only came into being in the late 2000s.[68]

Three of the earliest organizations to embody the ideals of effective altruism were:

  • Charity evaluator GiveWell, founded in 2007 by Holden Karnofsky and Elie Hassenfeld, with the goal of evaluating charities to figure out what the best options were for making donations.
  • Giving What We Can, founded in November 2009 by Toby Ord, with a focus on creating a community of people who pledged to donate a substantial portion of their income to alleviate global poverty.
  • 80,000 Hours, founded in October 2011 by William MacAskill and Benjamin Todd, for the purpose of offering career selection advice to people who wanted to maximize the positive social impact of their lives.

According to William MacAskill, the name "effective altruism" was settled upon in late 2011 when the "Centre for Effective Altruism" (CEA) was chosen as the name for an umbrella organisation that would cover both Giving What We Can and 80,000 Hours.[69] This was a largely internal name, but those who had followed a similar approach increasing converged upon the name[69][70] Peter Singer gave a TED talk about effective altruism in March 2013, which increased interest in the term and the idea.[71]

An effective altruism conference has been held every year since 2013, when Leverage Research initiated an Effective Altruism Summit[72][73]

Four books about effective altruism were released in 2015.[74] The first of these books, The Most Good You Can Do, was written by noted philosopher Peter Singer and reviewed by Nicholas Kristof for the New York Times.[75] The book Doing Good Better, by William MacAskill, was reviewed by LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman.[76]

Notable proponents[edit]

Peter Singer[edit]

Main article: Peter Singer

The philosopher Peter Singer has written several works on effective altruism, including:

If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought, morally, to do it.[27]

He founded an effective altruist nonprofit, also called The Life You Can Save, which promotes giving to effective charities. He is a member of Giving What We Can, a board member of Animal Charity Evaluators, and gives at least 33% of his income to a variety of cost-effective charities.[78][79][80][81]

Toby Ord[edit]

Main article: Toby Ord

Toby Ord is an ethicist at Oxford University. He promotes consequentialist ethics and is concerned with global poverty and catastrophic risks.[82] He founded the organization Giving What We Can, which encourages people to pledge ten percent of their income to charity. He lives on £18,000 ($27,000) per year and donates the remainder of his income to charity.[83]

William MacAskill[edit]

Main article: William MacAskill

William MacAskill is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Lincoln College, Oxford. He is also the founder and president of 80,000 Hours,[84] the co-founder and vice-president of Giving What We Can,[85] and the author of Doing Good Better: Effective Altruism and a Radical New Way to Make a Difference. MacAskill's pledge is to donate everything he earns above about $35,000 per year, adjusted using standard economic measures for inflation and cost of living, to the organizations that he believes will do the most good – his pledge means giving away 60 percent of his expected lifetime earnings.[86]


Many of the criticisms of effective altruism are the same as those that have historically been made of various forms of utilitarianism. These include questioning one's ability to make a full and accurate calculation of the consequences of any action, since we have only very limited ability to predict the future.

Much of the contemporary controversy about effective altruism is around the idea that it can be ethical to take a high-earning career in a potentially unethical industry if this allows one to donate more money. David Brooks, a columnist for The New York Times, criticized effective altruists who adopt the earning to give strategy, i.e., they take high-earning careers in order to have more money to donate. He believes that most people who work in finance and other high-paying industries value money for selfish reasons and that being surrounded by these people will cause effective altruists to become less altruistic.[87] Some effective altruists also mention this possibility, and aim to reduce this risk through online communities, public pledges, and donations through donor-advised funds.[88] He also questions whether children in distant countries should be treated as having equal moral value to nearby children. He claims that morality should be "internally ennobling", a position similar to virtue ethics.[87]

In The Week, Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry questioned whether effective altruism could change the world. He claimed that "Effective Altruism, while very welcome, is not an 'objective' look at the value of philanthropy; instead it is a method replete with philosophical assumptions. And that's fine, so long as everyone realizes it."[89]

In the Stanford Social Innovation Review, Ken Berger and Robert Penna of Charity Navigator alleged that effective altruists moralistically select a few causes as worthy and deem all others "a waste of precious resources."[90] William MacAskill responded in the same magazine, defending the logic the movement uses to evaluate the effectiveness of different charities.[91]

In Jacobin magazine, Mathew Snow argues that effective altruism "implores individuals to use their money to procure necessities for those who desperately need them, but says nothing about the system that determines how those necessities are produced and distributed in the first place".[92]

See also[edit]

Notes and references[edit]

  1. ^ a b c Matthews, Dylan (April 24, 2015). "You have $8 billion. You want to do as much good as possible. What do you do?". Vox. Retrieved April 27, 2015. 
  2. ^ "The Global Priorities Project | Prioritisation and policy research". Global Priorities Project. 
  3. ^ Walters, Helen. "The why and how of effective altruism: Peter Singer’s talk visualized". TED Blog. 
  4. ^ "Cari Tuna and Dustin Moskovitz: Young Silicon Valley billionaires pioneer new approach to philanthropy". The Washington Post. December 26, 2014. 
  5. ^ Thompson, Derek (June 15, 2015). "The Greatest Good". The Atlantic. 
  6. ^ "Peter Singer: "The Most Good You Can Do" | Talks at Google". YouTube. 
  7. ^ "Effective Altruist Groups". Effective Altruism Hub. Retrieved 4 December 2015. 
  8. ^ "Organizations". Effective Altruism. Retrieved 4 December 2015. 
  9. ^ Matthews, Dylan (April 24, 2015). "You have $8 billion. You want to do as much good as possible. What do you do?". Vox. Retrieved August 4, 2015. 
  10. ^ Karnofsky, Holden. "Strategic Cause Selection". The GiveWell Blog. GiveWell. Retrieved 22 June 2013. 
  11. ^ a b c d MacAskill, William (May 20, 2013). "What is Effective Altruism?". Practical Ethics blog. Retrieved April 11, 2015. 
  12. ^ "Causes". 80,000 Hours. Centre for Effective Altruism. Retrieved 22 June 2013. 
  13. ^ "GiveWell Labs Overview". GiveWell. 
  14. ^ Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, "Global Burden of Disease Study 2010", The Lancet, December 14, 2012
  15. ^ World Health Organization, "Global Burden of Disease"
  16. ^ "GiveWell". 
  17. ^ "Poverty Action Lab". Retrieved 24 June 2011. 
  18. ^ "Innovations for Poverty Action". Retrieved 24 June 2011. 
  19. ^ "Your dollar goes further when you fund the right program". GiveWell. 
  20. ^ a b "Your Dollar Goes Further Overseas". GiveWell. 
  21. ^ Learnvest, "Why Your Charitable Donations Probably Aren't Doing Much Good", Forbes, December 14, 2012
  22. ^ Hoskin, Ben. "Problems with "Overhead Costs" as a metric". Giving What We Can. Retrieved August 9, 2015. 
  23. ^ Karnofsky, Holden. "The worst way to pick a charity". Givewell. Retrieved August 9, 2015. 
  24. ^ Dan Palotta (March 2013). The way we think about charity is dead wrong (Video). TED.com. 
  25. ^ Courtney, Jonathan (January 24, 2013). "Book Review: It Ain't What you Give It's the Way you Give it". Giving What We Can. Retrieved July 20, 2016. 
  26. ^ "Room for More funding". GiveWell. 
  27. ^ a b c d "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" (PDF). 1972. p. 231. Retrieved 2011-05-23. 
  28. ^ "Animal Charity Evaluators". 
  29. ^ Milanovic. The Haves and the Have-nots. ISBN 9780465019748. 
  30. ^ Rosato, Donna; Wong, Grace (November 2011). "Best jobs for saving the world". CNN. Retrieved 2013-02-28. 
  31. ^ Hosler, Aimee (14 June 2011). "10 "helping" professions and how to train for them". Schools.com. Retrieved 2013-02-28. 
  32. ^ Todd, Benjamin J. "Just What Is 'Making a Difference'? - Counterfactuals and Career Choice". 80,000 Hours. Centre for Effective Altruism. Retrieved 17 July 2013. 
  33. ^ Todd, Benjamin. Which ethical careers make a difference? (Master's thesis). 
  34. ^ William MacAskill (2013). "Replaceability, Career Choice, and Making a Difference". Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. 
  35. ^ "Room for more funding". GiveWell. Retrieved 2016-07-18. 
  36. ^ "Key Concepts for Assessing Charities". Giving What We Can. Retrieved 2016-07-18. 
  37. ^ "Organization Evaluation Criteria Summary". Animal Charity Evaluators. Retrieved 2016-07-18. 
  38. ^ Pekarek, Jacob (2012). "Disinformation, Death, and DALYs: A Report on the Cost-Effectiveness of Charities and Charitable Interventions" (PDF). The Expositor. 
  39. ^ Preston, Caroline (July 23, 2010). "When It Comes to Donations, Is It Possible to Have Too Much?". Retrieved December 9, 2012. 
  40. ^ Zhang, Linch (2016-06-21). "How Can You do the Most Good with Your Charitable Giving? This Expert’s Answers Might Surprise You". Retrieved 2016-07-18. 
  41. ^ Todd, Benjamin (July 25, 2013). "How to assess the impact of a career". 80,000 Hours. Retrieved April 11, 2015. 
  42. ^ Wiblin, Robert. "Effective altruists love systemic change". 80,000 Hours. Retrieved 30 August 2015. 
  43. ^ "Wild animal suffering". Animal Charity Evaluators. Retrieved April 11, 2015. 
  44. ^ David Pearce. "Antispecism & Compassionate Stewardship". YouTube. Retrieved 2016-05-26. 
  45. ^ David Pearce (2013). "The Antispeciesist Revolution". Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. Retrieved 2016-05-26. 
  46. ^ Bostrom, Nick (2003). "Astronomical Waste: the Opportunity Cost of Delayed Technological Development" (PDF). 
  47. ^ Beckstead, Nick (April 11, 2015). "Research". 
  48. ^ Bostrom, Nick (2001). "Existential Risks - Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards" (PDF). 
  49. ^ Grace, Katja (August 20, 2014). "Conversation with Paul Christiano on Cause Prioritization Research". 80,000 Hours. Retrieved April 11, 2015. 
  50. ^ Pitney, Nico (March 26, 2015). "That Time A Hedge Funder Quit His Job And Then Raised $60 Million For Charity". Huffington Post. Retrieved April 27, 2015. 
  51. ^ Karnofsky, Holden (August 13, 2013). "Effective Altruism". GiveWell. Retrieved April 11, 2015. 
  52. ^ Karnofsky, Holden (January 8, 2015). "Organizations promoting generous, effective giving". Retrieved April 11, 2015. 
  53. ^ Karnofsky, Holden (September 8, 2011). "Announcing GiveWell Labs". GiveWell. Retrieved April 11, 2015. 
  54. ^ Karnofsky, Holden (2012-06-28). "GiveWell and Good Ventures". GiveWell. 
  55. ^ Karnofsky, Holden (August 20, 2014). "Open Philanthropy Project (formerly GiveWell Labs)". GiveWell. Retrieved April 11, 2015. 
  56. ^ Espinoza, Javier (November 28, 2011). "Small Sacrifice, Big Return". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved March 12, 2014. 
  57. ^ "Our sources". Giving What We Can. Retrieved 2012-12-09. 
  58. ^ "Raising for Effective Giving". Retrieved 8 September 2014. 
  59. ^ "Poker and Charity: Raising for Effective Giving (REG)". twoplustwo.com. Retrieved 8 September 2014. 
  60. ^ "Effective Giving". Retrieved 8 September 2014. 
  61. ^ "REG: Plans and fundraiser for 2016 - Raising for Effective Giving". Raising for Effective Giving. Retrieved 2016-02-17. 
  62. ^ Gose, Ben (November 3, 2013). "A Facebook Co-Founder and His Wife Use Effective Altruism to Shape Giving". Chronicle of Philanthropy. Retrieved March 25, 2014. 
  63. ^ Karnofsky, Holden. "GiveWell and Good Ventures". GiveWell. Retrieved 27 June 2015. 
  64. ^ "ABN lookup for Effective Altuism Australia". Australian Business Number lookup. Retrieved 19 June 2016. 
  65. ^ "Effective Altruism Australia - About Us". Effective Altruism Australia. Retrieved 19 June 2016. 
  66. ^ "Top charities". GiveWell. Retrieved April 11, 2015. 
  67. ^ "Top charities". Giving What We Can. Retrieved April 11, 2015. 
  68. ^ Singer, Peter (April 1, 2015). "The Most Good You Can Do". The Life You Can Save. Retrieved April 11, 2015. 
  69. ^ a b MacAskill, William (March 11, 2014). "The history of the term 'effective altruism'". The Effective Altruism Forum. Retrieved April 11, 2015. 
  70. ^ "Effective Altruists". Retrieved April 11, 2015. 
  71. ^ "Peter Singer: The why and how of effective altruism". TED Talks. March 1, 2013. Retrieved April 11, 2015. 
  72. ^ "Peter Thiel's Keynote - Effective Altruism Summit 2013". Exponential Times. November 8, 2013. Retrieved April 11, 2015. 
  73. ^ "Jaan Tallinn's Keynote - Effective Altruism Summit 2013". Exponential Times. November 13, 2013. Retrieved April 11, 2015. 
  74. ^ Bowerman, Niel (April 10, 2015). "Marketing Effective Altruism: What can we expect from book sales?". The Effective Altruism Forum. Retrieved April 11, 2015. 
  75. ^ Kristof, Nicholas (April 4, 2015). "The Trader Who Donates Half His Pay". New York Times. Retrieved April 11, 2015. 
  76. ^ Hoffman, Reid (September 10, 2015). "Compassionate Utilitarianism: Balancing the head and the heart in the pursuit of philanthropy". LinkedIn. Retrieved September 12, 2015. 
  77. ^ Singer, Peter (2009). The Life You Can Save: Acting now to end world poverty. New York: Random House. 
  78. ^ "List of Members". Retrieved 2015-02-18. 
  79. ^ "Board of Directors". Retrieved 2014-09-19. 
  80. ^ "How to Live an Ethical Life". Big Think. Retrieved 31 December 2014. 
  81. ^ "Peter Singer's Effective Altruist Profile". Retrieved 2015-05-15. 
  82. ^ Ord, Toby. "Academic Site". A Mirror Clear. Retrieved 2 March 2013. 
  83. ^ Geoghegan, Tom (13 December 2010). "Toby Ord: Why I'm giving £1m to charity". BBC News. Retrieved 2 March 2013. 
  84. ^ "Meet the Team". Retrieved 2015-11-26. 
  85. ^ "The Team". Retrieved 2015-11-26. 
  86. ^ "Should You Give Away 60%". Retrieved 2016-04-07. 
  87. ^ a b Brooks, David (June 3, 2013). "The Way to Produce a Person". New York Times. Retrieved July 7, 2015. 
  88. ^ "FAQ". 80,000 Hours. 
  89. ^ Gobry, Pascal-Emmanuel (March 16, 2015). "Can Effective Altruism really change the world?". The Week. Retrieved March 21, 2015. 
  90. ^ Berger, Ken; Penna, Robert (November 25, 2013). "The Elitist Philanthropy of So-Called Effective Altruism". Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved November 26, 2013. 
  91. ^ MacAskill, William (December 3, 2013). "What Charity Navigator Gets Wrong About Effective Altruism". Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved December 3, 2013. 
  92. ^ Snow, Mathew (August 25, 2015). "Against Charity". Jocobin. Retrieved December 3, 2015. 

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]