Effective altruism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Room for more funding)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Philosopher Peter Singer lectures on 'What's the most good you can do?' at Conway Hall in 2015.

Effective altruism is a philosophical and social movement that advocates "using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible, and taking action on that basis".[1][2]

People who embrace effective altruism are labeled effective altruists.[3] Common practices of effective altruists include significant charitable donation to evidence-based causes, sometimes through publicly pledging to donate a certain percentage of income, and basing career choices on the amount of good that the career achieves, which may include the strategy of earning to give. An estimated $416 million was donated to effective charities identified by the movement in 2019,[4] representing a 37% annual growth rate since 2015.[5] Prominent cause areas within effective altruism include global poverty, animal welfare, and risks to the survival and flourishing of humanity over the long-term future.

Philosophical principles of effective altruism include impartiality, cause neutrality, cost-effectiveness, and counterfactual reasoning.

While many effective altruists have focused on the non-profit sector, the philosophy of effective altruism applies more broadly to the process of prioritizing the scientific projects, companies, and policy initiatives that can be estimated to save lives, help people, or otherwise have the biggest benefit.[6]: 179–195  A related group that attracts some effective altruists is the rationalist community.[7]

Various critics of effective altruism have objected to the practice of cause prioritization and what they perceive as bias toward measurable interventions, as well as the neglect of more radical economic changes.

Famous people influenced by effective altruism include: Bill and Melinda Gates,[8] Warren Buffett,[8] Elon Musk,[9] Sam Bankman-Fried,[10] Peter Thiel,[11] Dan Smith,[9] and Liv Boeree.[9]


People practice effective altruism in different ways, such as donating to organizations like Deworm the World, using their career to make more money for donations or directly contributing their labor, and starting new non-profit or for-profit ventures. For example, Michael Kremer and Rachel Glennerster conducted many randomized controlled trials in Kenya to find out the best way to improve students' test scores. They tried new textbooks and flip charts, as well as smaller class sizes, but found that the only intervention that raised school attendance was treating intestinal worms in children.[12] Based on their findings, they started the Deworm the World Initiative, which is rated by GiveWell as one of the best charities in the world for cost-effectiveness.[12]


An aristocratic woman giving alms

Many effective altruists engage in significant charitable donation. Some believe it is a moral duty to alleviate suffering through donations if other possible uses of those funds do not offer comparable benefits to oneself,[13] and some lead a frugal lifestyle in order to give more.[14]

Giving What We Can (GWWC) is an organization whose members have pledged to donate at least 10% of their future income to the causes that they believe are the most effective. GWWC was founded in 2009 by Toby Ord, a moral philosopher, who lives on £18,000 ($27,000) per year and donates the balance of his income.[15] In 2020, Ord said that people had donated over $100 million to date through the GWWC pledge.[16]

The Founders Pledge is a similar initiative run by the nonprofit Founders Forum for Good where startup founders make a legally binding commitment to donate at least 2% of their personal proceeds to charity in the event that they sell their business.[17][18] By January 2019, three years after launch, more than 1400 entrepreneurs had pledged an estimated $700 million and at least $91 million had been donated.[19]

Two of the largest donors in the effective altruist community, Cari Tuna and Dustin Moskovitz, who had become wealthy through Facebook, hope to donate most of their net worth of over $11 billion for effective altruism causes through the private foundation Good Ventures.[20] Other prominent philanthropists influenced by effective altruism include Bill and Melinda Gates,[8] Warren Buffett,[8] Sam Bankman-Fried,[10] and Peter Thiel,[11] as well as professional poker players Dan Smith[9] and Liv Boeree.[9] One researcher estimates that effective altruism has roughly $46 billion committed to effective charities.[5]

Career choice[edit]

Effective altruists have argued that one's career is an important determinant of the amount of good one does,[21] both directly (through the services one provides) and indirectly (through one's consumption, investment, and donation decisions).[22]

80,000 Hours is an organization that conducts research on which careers have the largest positive social impact and provides career advice based on that research.[23][24] It considers both direct and indirect kinds of altruistic employment.[25][26]

Earning to give is a prominent approach to career choice among effective altruists. It involves choosing to work in high-paying careers with the explicit goal of donating large sums of money to charity.[27][28] Earning to give has been a site of debate. For example, high profile individuals and institutions within the movement have disagreed on when it is appropriate to work in morally controversial jobs. William MacAskill argued in 2014 that sufficient donations might justify an otherwise morally controversial career, since the marginal impact of taking an unethical job is small if someone else would have taken it regardless, while the impact of the donations could be large.[22] In 2017, 80,000 Hours recommended that it is better to avoid careers that do significant direct harm, even if it seems like the negative consequences could be outweighed by donations. This is because the harms from such careers may be hidden or otherwise hard to measure, and because they think it is important to account for moral uncertainty—for example, not knowing to what degree one should minimize the negative consequences that one hopes to outweigh by donations.[29]

Earning to give has faced criticism from commentators such as David Brooks and Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry. In 2013, Brooks published an article criticizing the earning to give approach. He wrote that most people who work in finance and other high-paying industries value money for selfish reasons and that working among such people will cause effective altruists to become less altruistic.[30] Peter Singer responded to these criticisms in his book The Most Good You Can Do by giving examples of people who have been earning to give for years without losing their altruism.[31] Separately, Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry argued that the practice was "unsettling", explaining that "the implication seems to be that taking a high-paying job selling fraudulent mortgage-backed securities is more praiseworthy than taking a low-paying job at the local homeless shelter, so long as one buys enough anti-malarial bed nets".[32] Singer responded to this kind of "ethical objection" by arguing that effective altruists who are not utilitarians may be able to find a high-paying job that is not complicit in causing such harm, but even those who take such a complicit job have at least several ways of dealing with the situation, such as by lobbying the organization to change its harmful practices, which may be easier to do from their position inside the organization, or by quitting and blowing the whistle on the organization, which might not have been possible without gaining information while on the job.[33]: 50–54 


Some effective altruists are entrepreneurs, starting non-profit organizations to implement cost-effective ways of improving well-being, for-profit organizations to earn to give, or for-profit organizations to make social impact. On the non-profit side, for example, the Happier Lives Institute conducts research on the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in developing countries;[34] Canopie develops an app that provides CBT to women who are expecting or postpartum;[35] Giving Green analyzes and ranks climate interventions for effectiveness;[36][37] the Fish Welfare Initiative works on improving animal welfare in fishing and aquaculture;[38] and the Lead Exposure Elimination Project works on reducing lead poisoning in developing countries.[39] On the for-profit side, effective altruism supporter Sam Bankman-Fried founded the crypto currency exchange FTX with the explicit goal of amassing a fortune (currently more than $20 billion) and then donating most of his wealth to charity.[40][41] An example of a for-profit company that aims to make social impact is Wave, a "radically affordable" mobile money service operating in Senegal that allows for free deposits and withdrawals, and charges a 1% fee for sending money.[42]

Cause priorities[edit]

Effective altruism is in principle open to furthering any cause that allows people to do the most good, while taking into account cause neutrality.[43][44] Examples of causes include providing food for those with food insecurity, protecting endangered species, mitigating climate change, reforming immigration policy, researching cures for illnesses, preventing sexual violence, alleviating poverty, eliminating factory farming, or averting nuclear warfare.[45] Many people in the effective altruist movement have prioritized global health and development, animal welfare, and mitigating risks that threaten the future of humanity.[20][46][47][48]

Global health and development[edit]

A poor family near Dadaab, Kenya

The alleviation of global poverty and neglected tropical diseases has been a focus of some of the earliest and most prominent organizations associated with effective altruism.

Charity evaluator GiveWell was founded by Holden Karnofsky and Elie Hassenfeld in 2007 to address poverty.[49][50] GiveWell has argued that the marginal impact of donations is greatest for attacking global poverty and health.[51][52] Its leading recommendations have been in these domains: malaria prevention charities Against Malaria Foundation and Malaria Consortium, deworming charities Schistosomiasis Control Initiative and Deworm the World Initiative, and GiveDirectly for direct unconditional cash transfers.[53][54]

The organization The Life You Can Save, which originated from Singer's book of the same name,[55] works to alleviate global poverty by promoting evidence-backed charities, conducting philanthropy education, and changing the culture of giving in affluent countries.[56][57]

While much of the initial focus of effective altruism was on direct strategies such as health interventions and cash transfers, more systematic social, economic, and political reforms meant to facilitate larger long-term poverty reduction have also attracted attention.[58] The Open Philanthropy Project, in collaboration with GiveWell, does research and philanthropic funding of more speculative and diverse causes such as policy reform, global catastrophic risk reduction and scientific research.[59][60][61][62][63]

Animal welfare[edit]

An industrial chicken farm in Ukraine

Many effective altruists care about animal welfare.[64][65][66] Singer argues that effective animal welfare altruists should prioritize changes to factory farming over pet welfare.[67][68] 60 billion land animals are slaughtered and between 1 and 2.7 trillion individual fish are killed each year for human consumption.[69][70][71] Since so many animals are affected, if animals such as chickens have some consciousness, total suffering could be reduced more easily by reducing factory farming than by reducing human poverty.[33]: 138, 146–147  Alternatively, Animal Ethics and Wild Animal Initiative focus on wild animal suffering.[72][73] Other animal initiatives affiliated with effective altruism include Animal Ethics' and Wild Animal Initiative's work on wild animal suffering,[72][73] addressing farm animal suffering with cultured meat[74][75], and expanding the circle of concern so that people care more about all kinds of animals.[76][77][38]

A number of non-profit organizations have been established that adopt an effective altruist approach toward animal welfare. Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE) evaluates animal charities based on their cost-effectiveness and transparency, particularly those tackling factory farming.[78][79][33]: 139  Faunalytics focuses on animal welfare research.[80][81] The Sentience Institute is a think tank founded to expand the moral circle to other species.[82][83]

Long-term future and global catastrophic risks[edit]

Global catastrophic risks, such as those arising from pandemics, are a priority of the effective altruism movement.

Focusing on the long-term future, some effective altruists 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.[20][84][85][86] Some researchers have found it psychologically difficult to contemplate the trade-off; Toby Ord stated, "Since there is so much work to be done to fix the needless suffering in our present, I was slow to turn to the future."[87]: 8  Reasons Ord gave for working on long-term issues include a belief that preventing long-term suffering is "even more neglected" than causes related to current suffering, and that the residents of the future are even more powerless to affect risks caused by current events than are current dispossessed populations".[87]: 8 

Philosophically, assessing the suffering of future populations involves multiple considerations. First, humanity (and other animals) may not exist at all, in which cases there is no suffering to alleviate (presuming that the process of eliminating the population does not itself involve suffering). Second, the cost of an incremental reduction in suffering in the future may be higher (e.g., because of increasing healthcare costs) or lower (brought down, e.g., by the ever-crashing cost of computing or renewable energy). Third, the value of a benefit or cost is affected by the time preferences of the recipient and the payer. Fourth, future suffering may be alleviated by current spending, potentially at a lower cost. Fifth, alleviating suffering sooner may have a knock-on effect of reducing/increasing future suffering. Sixth, if investing money produces outsized returns, that may provide the ability to reduce total suffering by more than if the money is instead donated before it can accumulate. Seventh, future populations may be so much wealthier than the current population that, even if a particular reduction in suffering costs more than it does today, the population might still be better off by waiting.[88] Singer argued that existential risk should not be "the dominant public face of the effective altruism movement" because he claimed that doing so would drastically limit the movement's reach.[89]

In particular, the importance of addressing existential risks such as dangers associated with biotechnology and advanced artificial intelligence is often highlighted and the subject of active research.[90] Because it is generally infeasible to use traditional research techniques such as randomized controlled trials to analyze existential risks, researchers such as Nick Bostrom have used methods such as expert opinion elicitation to estimate their importance.[91] Ord offered probability estimates for a number of existential risks in his 2020 book The Precipice.[92]

Organizations that work actively on research and advocacy for improving the long-term future, and have connections with the effective altruism community, are the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford, the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge, and the Future of Life Institute.[93] In addition, the Machine Intelligence Research Institute is focused on the more narrow mission of managing advanced artificial intelligence.[94][95]


Peter Singer is one of several philosophers who helped popularize effective altruism.

Effective altruists have posed philosophical questions about the most effective ways to benefit others. They have tried to figure out the most plausible answers to those questions, so that people can act on the basis of those answers.[45][96] Such philosophical questions shift the starting point of reasoning from "what to do" to why and how.[43]

Effective altruists have yet to reach consensus on the answers to all such questions.[45][97] But the minimal philosophical core of effective altruism involves having some reason to benefit all others, that is, reason to promote their well-being,[98] "and more reason to benefit them more, and most reason to benefit them as much as possible, at least defeasibly and if other things are equal".[45] This core is likely to be compatible with a wide variety of views about morality and meta-ethics.[1][45]

Views vary about whether effective altruism entails normative ethical claims such as "we should do the most good we can".[99][96]: 12–15  One view is that effective altruism is not a set of normative claims telling people what they "should do", but instead a process of trying to figure out how to do the most good with a given unit of resources and of putting what has been learned into practice.[96]: 15  According to this view, the normative ethical theories of consequentialism, egalitarianism, prioritarianism, utilitarianism, contractualism, deontological ethics, virtue ethics, as well as many traditional religious teachings on altruism such as those in Christianity,[1][9] can all be compatible with the project of effective altruism.[1][45] Effective altruism is not a complete philosophy of how to live morally, but effective altruism may be relevant for any view that assumes some reason to promote the good and that the well-being of others is part of the good.[96]: 19 

Effective altruists have reported that the questions posed by effective altruism have helped them learn as well as find meaning and satisfaction from helping others more effectively.[100]

Important ideas that are discussed in literature about effective altruism include impartiality, cause prioritization, cost-effectiveness, and counterfactual reasoning.


An allegorical image of equality by Jean-Guillaume Moitte, 1793

Altruism, or benefitting others, can be driven by various motivations and justifications, including impartial or impersonal reasoning and sentiments such as sympathy and compassion.[101] Much of the published literature on effective altruism emphasizes impartial or impersonal reasoning and concludes that, other things being equal, everyone's well-being (and suffering) counts equally, without regard to individual identities.[33]: 85–95 [45][96]: 17–19  For example, philosopher Peter Singer, in his 1972 essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", wrote:[13]: 231–232, 237 

It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor'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.

This view has been influential among effective altruists.[102] Singer's arguments for impartiality were later repeated in other books by Singer[33][55] and expanded in the 1996 book Living High and Letting Die by philosopher Peter Unger.[103]

Impartiality about benefitting others combined with seeking to do the most good is compatible with prioritizing benefits to those who are in a worse state, because anyone who happens to be worse off will benefit more from an improvement in their state, all other things being equal (see § Global health and development above).[45]

Impartiality is also the basis of what is called the cause neutrality of effective altruism (see § Cause prioritization below): choosing among possible altruistic activities or causes (problems) based on whether they will do the most good with limited resources—as opposed to choosing among them based on other factors such as personal connections.[45]

Some effective altruists have argued that because the total sum of members of future generations will be larger than the current population, the way to do the most good is to focus on promoting long-term well-being by, for example, reducing existential risks to humanity (see § Long-term future and global catastrophic risks above).[33]: 165–178 [84][104]

Some effective altruists think that the interests of non-human animals should be accorded the same moral weight as similar interests of humans, so they work to prevent the suffering of animals (see § Animal welfare above),[105][106] e.g., the suffering of animals raised in factory farms.[68]

Obstacles to impartiality[edit]

Singer speculated in "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" that whether people think and act impartially is likely to be affected by social influence: "What it is possible for a man to do and what he is likely to do are both, I think, very greatly influenced by what people around him are doing and expecting him to do."[13]: 237  In his 2015 book The Most Good You Can Do, Singer admitted that even though he had argued in 1972 that "we ought to give large proportions of our income to disaster relief funds", he did not do it himself: "even though I argued that this is what we ought to do, I did not do it myself".[33]: 13  He noted the role of social influence and psychological inertia as obstacles to acting altruistically.[33]: 13–14  Sociological research has shown that social influence can undermine altruistic activity.[107] To support people's ability to act altruistically on the basis of impartial reasoning, the effective altruism movement promotes additional values and actions that are not part of the minimal philosophical core of effective altruism, such as a collaborative spirit, honesty, transparency, and publicly pledging to donate a certain percentage of income or other resources.[1]: 2 

Cause prioritization[edit]

Many nonprofits emphasize effectiveness and evidence, but this is usually done with a single cause (problem) in mind, such as education or climate change.[108] Effective altruists, however, seek to compare the relative importance of different causes and allocate resources among them objectively, adopting cause neutrality.[109] One approach to cause neutrality, for example, is to choose the highest priority causes based on whether activities in each cause area efficiently advance broad goals, such as increasing human or animal welfare, and then focus attention on interventions in those cause areas.[110]

Effective altruist organizations such as 80,000 Hours[111] and Open Philanthropy[112] prioritize problems using the importance, tractability, and neglectedness framework, which aims to estimate the marginal benefit of allocating an additional unit of resources, such as money or people, toward addressing a problem. The three criteria that this framework uses to evaluate problems are:

  • Importance or scale, the amount of value that would be created if a problem were solved.
  • Tractability or solvability, the fraction of a problem that would be solved if additional resources were devoted to it.
  • Neglectedness, the paucity of resources already allocated to attempts to address a problem; a cause is more neglected the fewer resources are going toward it.

The information required for cause prioritization may involve collecting and processing complex data sets, comparing possible outcomes with what would have happened under other conditions (see § Counterfactual reasoning below), and identifying various kinds of uncertainty.[45][113] The difficulty of these tasks has led to the creation of organizations that specialize in researching the relative prioritization of causes.[45][47][114] Causes that have been accepted among effective altruists include: poverty in the developing world, the suffering of animals in factory farms, as well as risks to civilization, humans, and planet Earth (see § Cause priorities above).[6][43]


Effective altruist organizations have argued that some charities are far more effective than others, either because some do not achieve their goals or because of the varying cost of achieving those goals.[115][51] When possible, they seek to identify charities that are highly cost-effective, meaning that they achieve a large benefit for a given amount of money.[12] For example, they select health interventions on the basis of their impact as measured by lives extended per dollar, quality-adjusted life years (QALY) added per dollar, or disability-adjusted life years (DALY) reduced per dollar.[6]: 34  This measure of disease burden is expressed as the number of years lost due to ill-health, disability, or early death.

Some effective altruist organizations prefer randomized controlled trials as a primary form of evidence,[12][46] as they are often considered to be at the highest level of evidence, e.g., in healthcare research.[116] For example, the Deworm the World Initiative was started by Michael Kremer and Rachel Glennerster after they conducted randomized controlled trials in Kenya to find out the best way to improve students' test scores; they tried new textbooks and flip charts, as well as smaller class sizes, but found that the only intervention that raised school attendance was treating intestinal worms in children.[12] Others have argued that requiring this stringent level of evidence unnecessarily narrows the focus to only those issues on which this kind of evidence can be developed, and that the history of philanthropy suggests that many effective interventions have proceeded without this level of evidence.[117]

Room for more funding[edit]

Effective altruist organizations consider the expected impact of a funding increase rather than evaluating the average value of all donations to the charity.[118][119] Effective altruists would avoid donating to organizations that lack "room" for more funding – those that face bottlenecks other than money that would prevent them from effectively employing additional resources.[120] For example, a medical charity might not be able to hire enough doctors or nurses to distribute the medical supplies it is capable of purchasing, or it might already be serving all of the potential patients in its market.

Counterfactual reasoning[edit]

Effective altruists have argued that counterfactual reasoning is important to determine which course of action maximizes positive impact. Counterfactual reasoning involves considering the possible outcomes of alternative choices. It has been employed by effective altruists in a number of contexts, including the topic of career choice. Many people assume that the best way to help people is through direct methods, such as working for a charity or providing social services,[121] but since charities and social-service providers can usually find people willing to work for them, effective altruists would 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 done the work instead. According to this reasoning, the marginal impact of a career is likely to be smaller than the gross impact.[122][123]


The movement that later adopted the name effective altruism was created in the late 2000s as a community formed around Giving What We Can, a group founded in 2009 by philosopher Ord with help from MacAskill, co-founder of 80,000 Hours in 2011.[124][33]: 16–19  Those two groups, while planning to incorporate as a charity under a new umbrella organization, held a vote in 2011 to name the organization; the name "Centre for Effective Altruism" won.[125][124][33]: 18  The "Effective Altruists" Facebook group was set up in November 2012, and the movement gained wider exposure with Peter Singer's TED talk "The Why and How of Effective Altruism" in May 2013.[124] Other contributions were the writings of philosophers such as Singer on applied ethics and Bostrom on reducing the risk of human extinction, the founding of organizations such as GiveWell and The Life You Can Save, and the creation of internet forums such as LessWrong.[126]: 110 [127]

Effective altruism conferences (called Effective Altruism Global) have been held since 2013.[128][129] In 2015, Singer published The Most Good You Can Do.[67] In the same year MacAskill published Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Make a Difference.[130][131][12]

In 2018, American news website Vox launched its Future Perfect section, led by journalist Dylan Matthews.[132] Future Perfect has published written pieces and podcasts on the mission of "Finding the best ways to do good",[133][134] including topics such as effective philanthropy,[135] high-impact career choice,[23] poverty reduction through women's empowerment,[136] improving children's learning efficiently through improving environmental health,[137] animal welfare improvements,[78] and ways to reduce global catastrophic risks.[138]


Legitimacy of comparisons within and across causes[edit]

Ken Berger and Robert Penna of Charity Navigator, writing in Stanford Social Innovation Review, derided effective altruism as "defective altruism" and condemned its practice of "weighing causes and beneficiaries against one another", calling this "moralistic, in the worst sense of the word".[139] MacAskill responded in the same magazine, defending the rationale for comparing one beneficiary's interests against another and concluding that such comparison is difficult and sometimes impossible but often necessary.[140]

Bias toward measurable interventions[edit]

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry warned about the "measurement problem", stating that some areas, such as medical research, or helping to reform third-world governance "one grinding step at a time", are hard to measure with controlled cost-effectiveness experiments and therefore risk being undervalued by the effective altruism movement.[32] Jennifer Rubenstein also hypothesized that effective altruism can be biased against difficult-to-measure causes.[127]

Perceived neglect of radical economic change[edit]

Mathew Snow argued 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".[141] Various critics have similarly objected to effective altruists' neglect of political causes such as anti-capitalism that change "the existing global institutional order".[142] Joshua Kissel replied that anti-capitalism is compatible with effective altruism in theory, while adding that effective altruists and anti-capitalists have reason to be more sympathetic to each other.[44] Brian Berkey argued that support for institutional change does not contradict the principles of effective altruism, because effective altruism is open to any action that will have the greatest positive impact on the world, including the possibility of changing the existing global institutional order.[142] Elizabeth Ashford argued that people are separately obligated to donate to effective aid charities and to reform the structures that are responsible for poverty.[143]

See also[edit]

Notes and references[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d e MacAskill, William (January 2017). "Effective altruism: introduction". Essays in Philosophy. 18 (1): eP1580:1–5. doi:10.7710/1526-0569.1580. ISSN 1526-0569. Archived from the original on 2019-08-07. Retrieved 2020-02-08.
  2. ^ The quoted definition is endorsed by a number of organizations at: "CEA's Guiding Principles". Centre For Effective Altruism. Retrieved 2021-12-03.
  3. ^ The term effective altruists is used to refer to people who embrace effective altruism in many published sources such as Oliver (2014), Singer (2015), and MacAskill (2017), though as Pummer & MacAskill (2020) noted, calling people "effective altruists" just means minimally that they are engaged in the project of "using evidence and reason to try to find out how to do the most good, and on this basis trying to do the most good", not that they are perfectly effective nor even that they necessarily participate in the effective altruism community.
  4. ^ Todd, Benjamin (2020-08-09). "How are resources in effective altruism allocated across issues?". 80,000 Hours. Retrieved 2021-12-15.
  5. ^ a b Todd, Benjamin (2020-07-28). "Is effective altruism growing? An update on the stock of funding vs. people". 80,000 Hours. Retrieved 2021-12-15.
  6. ^ a b c MacAskill, William (2016) [2015]. Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Help Others, Do Work that Matters, and Make Smarter Choices about Giving Back. New York: Avery. ISBN 9781592409662. OCLC 932001639.
  7. ^ Chivers, Tom (2019). "Chapter 38: The Effective Altruists". The AI Does Not Hate You. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 978-1474608770.
  8. ^ a b c d Anderson, David (3 December 2019). "On giving Tuesday, see how Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are changing the world like no other humans in history". Business Insider. Retrieved 2021-12-06.
  9. ^ a b c d e f Pincus-Roth, Zachary (23 September 2020). "The Rise of the Rational Do-Gooders". The Washington Post Magazine. Retrieved 2021-12-06.
  10. ^ a b Zillman, Claire (29 July 2021). "Sam Bankman-Fried and the conscience of a crypto billionaire". Fortune. Retrieved 2021-12-06.
  11. ^ a b Zaki, Jamil (5 December 2015). "Opinion: The feel-good school of philanthropy". The New York Times. Retrieved 2021-12-06.
  12. ^ a b c d e f Thompson, Derek (June 15, 2015). "The Greatest Good". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on August 20, 2019. Retrieved March 6, 2017.
  13. ^ a b c Singer, Peter (Spring 1972). "Famine, Affluence, and Morality". Philosophy and Public Affairs. 1 (3): 229–243. JSTOR 2265052. The essay was republished in book form in 2016 with a new preface and two extra essays by Singer: Singer, Peter (2016). Famine, Affluence, and Morality. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190219208. OCLC 907446001.
  14. ^ Burton, Paul (October 13, 2015). "Family Gives Away Half Their Income To Help Others". WBZ-TV. Archived from the original on September 30, 2017. Retrieved March 11, 2017.
  15. ^ Geoghegan, Tom (December 13, 2010). "Toby Ord: Why I'm giving £1m to charity". BBC News. Archived from the original on May 13, 2013. Retrieved March 2, 2013.
  16. ^ Matthews, Dylan (30 November 2020). "Toby Ord explains his pledge to give 10% of his pay to charity". Vox. Retrieved 2021-12-06.
  17. ^ MacAskill, William (November 26, 2015). "One of the most exciting new effective altruist organisations: An interview with David Goldberg of the Founders Pledge". 80,000 Hours. Archived from the original on September 21, 2017. Retrieved March 11, 2017.
  18. ^ Butcher, Mike (June 9, 2015). "UK Tech Founders Take The Founders Pledge To 2%, Committing $28m+ To Good Causes". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on December 5, 2015. Retrieved December 5, 2015.
  19. ^ Paynter, Ben (2018-09-25). "Why nonprofits should be courting entrepreneurs as donors". Fast Company (in American English). Archived from the original on 2018-12-09. Retrieved 2018-12-09.
  20. ^ 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? Inside the Open Philanthropy Project". Vox. Archived from the original on August 24, 2017. Retrieved April 27, 2015.
  21. ^ Oliver, Huw (6 October 2014). "'Effective altruists' are a new type of nice person". Vice (in American English). Archived from the original on 12 March 2017. Retrieved March 11, 2017.
  22. ^ a b William, MacAskill (2014). "Replaceability, Career Choice, and Making a Difference". Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. 17 (2): 269–283. doi:10.1007/s10677-013-9433-4. ISSN 1386-2820. S2CID 143054318. Archived from the original on 2021-02-15. Retrieved 2017-03-11.
  23. ^ a b Matthews, Dylan (November 28, 2018). "How to pick a career that counts". Vox. Archived from the original on December 24, 2019. Retrieved December 8, 2018.
  24. ^ "Want To Make An Impact With Your Work? Try Some Advice From 80,000 Hours". TechCrunch. August 4, 2015. Archived from the original on November 9, 2015. Retrieved October 31, 2015.
  25. ^ Alcorn, Stan (June 4, 2013). "How To Choose An Ethical Career (With Help From Oxford Philosophers)". Co.Exist. Fast Company Inc. Archived from the original on March 12, 2017. Retrieved March 11, 2017.
  26. ^ "Meet the team". 80,000 Hours (in American English). Archived from the original on 2018-12-09. Retrieved 2018-12-09.
  27. ^ Todd, Benjamin (April 2017). "Why and how to earn to give". 80,000 Hours (in American English). Archived from the original on 2018-11-26. Retrieved 2019-01-12.
  28. ^ Matthews, Dylan. "Join Wall Street. Save the world". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on March 15, 2017. Retrieved March 11, 2017.
  29. ^ Todd, Benjamin (August 2017). "Is it ever okay to take a harmful job in order to do more good? An in-depth analysis". 80,000 Hours (in American English). Archived from the original on June 27, 2019. Retrieved June 27, 2019.
  30. ^ Brooks, David (June 3, 2013). "The Way to Produce a Person". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 5, 2016. Retrieved July 7, 2015.
  31. ^ "'Earning to Give' Leads to Happiness". Yale Press Log. 2016-08-09. Archived from the original on 2017-04-05. Retrieved 2017-04-04.
  32. ^ a b Gobry, Pascal-Emmanuel (March 16, 2015). "Can Effective Altruism really change the world?". The Week. Archived from the original on March 21, 2015. Retrieved March 21, 2015.
  33. ^ a b c d e f g h i j Singer, Peter (2015). The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically. Castle lectures in ethics, politics, and economics. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 9780300180275. OCLC 890614537.
  34. ^ Matthews, Dylan (2021-11-18). "Is therapy the best way to make the world happier?". Vox. Retrieved 2021-12-28.
  35. ^ "Mayor Bowser Announces Partnership to Provide Free Access to the Canopie Maternal Mental Health Program | mayormb". Retrieved 2021-12-28.
  36. ^ Meyer, Robinson (2020-12-01). "The Best Way to Donate to Fight Climate Change (Probably)". The Atlantic. Retrieved 2021-12-28.
  37. ^ Samuel, Sigal (2019-12-02). "Want to fight climate change effectively? Here's where to donate your money". Vox. Retrieved 2021-12-28.
  38. ^ a b Torrella, Kenny (2021-03-02). "The next frontier for animal welfare: Fish". Vox. Retrieved 2021-12-28.
  39. ^ Matthews, Dylan (2022-01-14). "Nearly half the world's kids are exposed to dangerous levels of lead". Vox. Retrieved 2022-01-14.
  40. ^ "Sam Bankman-Fried". 80,000 Hours (in American English). March 2021. Retrieved 2022-01-03.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  41. ^ Schleifer, Theodore (2021-03-20). "How a crypto billionaire decided to become one of Biden's biggest donors". Vox. Retrieved 2022-01-03.
  42. ^ "Sequoia Heritage, Stripe and others invest $200M in African fintech Wave at $1.7B valuation". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2022-01-09.
  43. ^ a b c Crouch, Will (May 30, 2013). "What is effective altruism?". blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk. Practical Ethics blog, Philosophy Faculty, University of Oxford. Archived from the original on October 3, 2015. Retrieved February 4, 2020.
  44. ^ a b Kissel, Joshua (January 31, 2017). "Effective Altruism and Anti-Capitalism: An Attempt at Reconciliation". Essays in Philosophy. 18 (1): 68–90. doi:10.7710/1526-0569.1573.
  45. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Pummer, Theron; MacAskill, William (June 2020). "Effective altruism". In LaFollette, Hugh (ed.). International Encyclopedia of Ethics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 1–9. doi:10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee883. ISBN 9781444367072. OCLC 829259960.
  46. ^ a b Skelton, Anthony (2016). "The ethical principles of effective altruism". Journal of Global Ethics. 12 (2): 137–146. doi:10.1080/17449626.2016.1193552. S2CID 147936480. Archived from the original on March 12, 2017. Retrieved March 11, 2017.
  47. ^ a b "Our current view of the world's most pressing problems". 80,000 Hours (in American English). Archived from the original on March 14, 2020. Retrieved March 10, 2020.
  48. ^ Muehlhauser, Luke (July 8, 2013). "Four focus areas of effective altruism – Effective Altruism Forum". forum.effectivealtruism.org. Archived from the original on January 13, 2019. Retrieved January 12, 2019. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  49. ^ Karnofsky, Holden (August 13, 2013). "Effective Altruism". GiveWell. Archived from the original on August 18, 2015. Retrieved April 11, 2015.
  50. ^ Konduri, Vimal. "GiveWell Co-Founder Explains Effective Altruism Frameworks". The Harvard Crimson. Archived from the original on March 13, 2017. Retrieved March 10, 2017.
  51. ^ a b "Your Dollar Goes Further Overseas". GiveWell. Archived from the original on 2019-10-31. Retrieved 2013-03-10.
  52. ^ Wolfe, Alexandra (November 24, 2011). "Hedge Fund Analytics for Nonprofits". Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg LP. Archived from the original on March 16, 2017. Retrieved March 11, 2017.
  53. ^ "Doing good by doing well". The Economist, Inc. Archived from the original on 27 December 2016. Retrieved 10 March 2017.
  54. ^ Pitney, Nico (March 26, 2015). "That Time A Hedge Funder Quit His Job And Then Raised $60 Million For Charity". Huffington Post. Archived from the original on May 18, 2015. Retrieved April 27, 2015.
  55. ^ a b Singer, Peter (2009). The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty. New York: Random House. ISBN 9781400067107. OCLC 232980306.
  56. ^ Zhang, Linch (March 17, 2017). "How To Do Good: A Conversation With The World's Leading Ethicist". Huffington Post (in American English). Archived from the original on March 24, 2017. Retrieved June 1, 2017.
  57. ^ The Life You Can Save. "Our story - The Life You Can Save". Archived from the original on September 18, 2020. Retrieved September 18, 2020.
  58. ^ Weathers, Scott (29 February 2016). "Can 'effective altruism' change the world? It already has". Transformation. Archived from the original on 12 March 2017. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
  59. ^ "Focus Areas | Open Philanthropy Project". www.openphilanthropy.org. Archived from the original on 2019-01-13. Retrieved 2019-01-12.
  60. ^ Karnofsky, Holden (September 8, 2011). "Announcing GiveWell Labs". GiveWell. Archived from the original on July 2, 2015. Retrieved April 11, 2015.
  61. ^ "Who We Are | Open Philanthropy Project". www.openphilanthropy.org. Archived from the original on 2019-01-13. Retrieved 2019-01-12.
  62. ^ Karnofsky, Holden (August 20, 2014). "Open Philanthropy Project (formerly GiveWell Labs)". GiveWell. Archived from the original on August 16, 2015. Retrieved April 11, 2015.
  63. ^ Moses, Sue-Lynn (9 March 2016). "Leverage: Why This Silicon Valley Funder Is Doubling Down on a Beltway Think Tank". Inside Philanthropy. Archived from the original on 12 March 2017. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
  64. ^ Gunther, Marc (2021-11-26). "Why the future of animal welfare lies beyond the West". Vox. Retrieved 2022-01-14.
  65. ^ Klein, Ezra (2019-12-06). "Peter Singer on the lives you can save". Vox. Retrieved 2022-01-14.
  66. ^ Matthews, Dylan (2021-04-12). "The wild frontier of animal welfare". Vox. Retrieved 2022-01-14.
  67. ^ a b Kristof, Nicholas (April 4, 2015). "The Trader Who Donates Half His Pay". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 9, 2019. Retrieved April 11, 2015.
  68. ^ a b "Why Farmed Animals?". Animal Charity Evaluators (in American English). November 2016. Archived from the original on 2019-07-06. Retrieved 2018-12-09.
  69. ^ "Fish: the forgotten victims on our plate". The Guardian (in British English). 2010-09-14. ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on 2017-08-01. Retrieved June 14, 2017.
  70. ^ Global Warming Climate Change and Farm Animal Welfare (PDF). Compassion in World Farming. 2008. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-05-27. Retrieved 2017-06-14.
  71. ^ Mood, Alison (2010). Worse things happen at sea: the welfare of wild-caught fish (PDF). fishcount.org.uk. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2017-05-19. Retrieved 2017-06-14.
  72. ^ a b Matthews, Dylan (2021-04-12). "The wild frontier of animal welfare". Vox. Retrieved 2021-09-05.
  73. ^ a b ""Effective Altruism for Animals" Panel, Animal Studies". New York University Animal Studies Initiative. NYU. Archived from the original on 12 March 2017. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
  74. ^ "How one founder aims to bring researchers and food producers together around cultured meat". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2022-01-14.
  75. ^ "Is Anyone Right About the Future of Cultivated Meat? Does It Matter?". Green Queen. 2021-11-09. Retrieved 2022-01-14.
  76. ^ Lombrozo, Tania (2016-11-15). "Expanding The Circle Of Moral Concern". NPR. Retrieved 2022-01-14.
  77. ^ Samuel, Sigal (2019-04-04). "Should animals, plants, and robots have the same rights as you?". Vox. Retrieved 2022-01-14.
  78. ^ a b Piper, Kelsey (November 27, 2018). "Where will your donations do the most for animals?". Vox. Archived from the original on November 28, 2018. Retrieved December 8, 2018.
  79. ^ Daniel Engber, "Save the Chicken" Archived 2016-10-04 at the Wayback Machine, Slate, August 18, 2016.
  80. ^ Piper, Kelsey (2018-10-31). "Vegan diets are hard to sell. Animal activists might do better focused on corporate decisions, not people's plates". Vox. Archived from the original on 2019-01-13. Retrieved 2019-01-12.
  81. ^ "What We Do". Faunalytics (in American English). Archived from the original on 2019-01-13. Retrieved 2019-01-12.
  82. ^ Sigal, Samuel (2019-04-04). "Moral circle expansion: should animals, plants, and robots have the same rights as humans?". Vox. Retrieved 2021-12-01.
  83. ^ Witwicki, Kelly; Reese, Jacy. "Introducing Sentience Institute". Sentience Institute. Archived from the original on 5 August 2019. Retrieved 5 August 2019.
  84. ^ a b Todd, Benjamin (October 24, 2017). "Introducing longtermism: How important are future generations?". 80000 Hours. Archived from the original on February 20, 2020. Retrieved February 8, 2020. Since the future is big, there could be far more people in the future than in the present generation. This means that if you want to help people in general, your key concern shouldn't be to help the present generation, but to ensure that the future goes well in the long-term. Previously, we called this the 'long-term value thesis', though it is now most commonly called 'longtermism'. This thesis is often confused with the claim that we shouldn't do anything to help people in the present generation. But the long-term value thesis is about what most matters—what we should do about it is a further question. It might turn out that the best way to help those in the future is to improve the lives of people in the present, such as through providing health and education.
  85. ^ "The Importance of the Far Future". Effective Altruism Foundation. Effective Altruism Foundation. August 5, 2016. Archived from the original on March 12, 2017. Retrieved March 11, 2017.
  86. ^ Bostrom, Nick (2003). "Astronomical Waste: The Opportunity Cost of Delayed Technological Development" (PDF). Utilitas. 15 (3): 308–314. CiteSeerX doi:10.1017/S0953820800004076. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2017-06-11. Retrieved 2017-06-15.
  87. ^ a b Ord, Toby (2020). "Introduction" (PDF). The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 9781526600196. OCLC 1143365836. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06.
  88. ^ Bostrom, Nick (February 2013). "Existential risk prevention as global priority". Global Policy. pp. 15–31. doi:10.1111/1758-5899.12002.
  89. ^ Klein, Ezra (6 December 2019). "Peter Singer on the lives you can save". Vox. Archived from the original on 6 May 2020. Retrieved 6 April 2020.
  90. ^ Todd, Benjamin (2017). "Why despite global progress, humanity is probably facing its most dangerous time ever". 80,000 Hours (in American English). Archived from the original on 2019-01-13. Retrieved 2019-01-12.
  91. ^ Rowe, Thomas; Beard, Simon (2018). "Probabilities, methodologies and the evidence base in existential risk assessments" (PDF). Working Paper, Centre for the Study of Existential Risk. Archived (PDF) from the original on 27 August 2018. Retrieved 26 August 2018.
  92. ^ Ord, Toby (2020). The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 167. ISBN 9781526600196. OCLC 1143365836.
  93. ^ Guan, Melody (19 April 2015). "The New Social Movement of our Generation: Effective Altruism". Harvard Political Review. Archived from the original on 12 March 2017. Retrieved 11 March 2017.
  94. ^ Piper, Kelsey (2018-12-21). "The case for taking AI seriously as a threat to humanity". Vox. Archived from the original on 2019-01-13. Retrieved 2019-01-12.
  95. ^ Basulto, Dominic (July 7, 2015). "The very best ideas for preventing artificial intelligence from wrecking the planet". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on March 16, 2017. Retrieved March 11, 2017.
  96. ^ a b c d e MacAskill, William (2019a). "The definition of effective altruism". In Greaves, Hilary; Pummer, Theron (eds.). Effective Altruism: Philosophical Issues. Engaging philosophy. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 10–28. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198841364.003.0001. ISBN 9780198841364. OCLC 1101772304.
  97. ^ "How can I do the most good?" is the "guiding question" according to MacAskill (2016, p. 14). Other questions can be found in: Singer (2015, pp. 7–10) (e.g., "What counts as 'the most good'?", "Does 'the most good you can do' mean that it is wrong to give priority to one's own children?", "Does everyone's suffering count equally?", "What about other values, like justice, freedom, equality, and knowledge?", "Can everyone practice effective altruism?"); MacAskill (2016, pp. 13) (e.g., "How many people benefit, and by how much?", "What would have happened otherwise?", "What are the chances of success, and how good would success be?"); MacAskill (2019a, pp. 16–20) (e.g., Is it better to think of effective altruism "as an 'opportunity' or an 'obligation'"?, Do "the ends justify the means"?), and Pummer & MacAskill (2020) (e.g., "How can I do the most good, given what others are likely to do?").
  98. ^ MacAskill (2019a) said of the emphasis on well-being in effective altruism: "This welfarism is 'tentative', however, insofar as it is taken to be merely a working assumption. The ultimate aim of the effective altruist project is to do as much good as possible; the current focus on wellbeing rests on the idea that, given the current state of the world and our incredible opportunity to benefit others, the best ways of promoting welfarist value are broadly the same as the best ways of promoting the good." (p. 18)
  99. ^ Singer (2015) expressed a clearly normative view: "Effective altruism is based on a very simple idea: we should do the most good we can. Obeying the usual rules about not stealing, cheating, hurting, and killing is not enough, or at least not enough for those of us who have the great good fortune to live in material comfort, who can feed, house, and clothe ourselves and our families and still have money or time to spare. Living a minimally acceptable ethical life involves using a substantial part of our spare resources to make the world a better place. Living a fully ethical life involves doing the most good we can." (p. vii)
  100. ^ For example, Vox staff writer and self-identified effective altruist Kelsey Piper wrote: "You're asked to sacrifice to do good, but in return you get real and important results, as well as a life filled with meaning and purpose. You're asked to spend a lot of time thinking about complicated, intimidating questions, but you will learn how to approach hard questions and come away with a clearer picture of the world." Piper, Kelsey (2020). "Effective altruism". In Pigliucci, Massimo; Cleary, Skye; Kaufman, Daniel (eds.). How to Live a Good Life: A Guide to Choosing Your Personal Philosophy. New York: Vintage Books. pp. 255–270 (268). ISBN 9780525566144. OCLC 1133275390. And Singer (2015) reported: "Second, effective altruism is a way of giving meaning to our own lives and finding fulfillment in what we do. Many effective altruists say that in doing good, they feel good. Effective altruists directly benefit others, but indirectly they often benefit themselves." (p. viii) Singer gave the example of Rachel Maley, who said: "When I learned that I could spend my exorbitant monthly gym membership (I don't even want to tell you how much it cost) on curing blindness instead, the only thought I had was, 'Why haven't I been doing this all along?' That question changed my life forever. I rethought all my financial priorities." (p. 88)
  101. ^ Kraut, Richard (August 25, 2016). "Altruism". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 ed.). See especially the section "4. Why care about others?" Archived 2020-01-26 at the Wayback Machine: "Radically different ways of answering these questions [about why to benefit others] can be found in moral philosophy."
  102. ^ On the influence of Singer's essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" see, for example: Snow 2015, Singer 2015, pp. 13–20, and Lichtenberg, Judith (November 30, 2015). "Peter Singer's extremely altruistic heirs: Forty years after it was written, 'Famine, Affluence, and Morality' has spawned a radical new movement". The New Republic.
  103. ^ Feldman, Fred (March 1998). "Review of Living High and Letting Die: Our Illusion of Innocence by Peter Unger" (PDF). Noûs. 32 (1): 138–147. doi:10.1111/0029-4624.00093. JSTOR 2671931. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-06-07. Retrieved 2020-02-05.
  104. ^ Beckstead, Nick (2019). "A brief argument for the overwhelming importance of shaping the far future". In Greaves, Hilary; Pummer, Theron (eds.). Effective Altruism: Philosophical Issues. Engaging philosophy. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 80–98. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198841364.003.0006. ISBN 9780198841364. OCLC 1101772304.
  105. ^ Fisher, Andrew (January 2017). "Theory-neutral arguments for 'effective animal advocacy'". Essays in Philosophy. 18 (1): eP1578:1–14. doi:10.7710/1526-0569.1578. ISSN 1526-0569. Archived from the original on 2019-08-07. Retrieved 2020-02-08.
  106. ^ Broad, Garrett M. (December 2018). "Effective animal advocacy: effective altruism, the social economy, and the animal protection movement". Agriculture and Human Values. 35 (4): 777–789. doi:10.1007/s10460-018-9873-5. S2CID 158634567.
  107. ^ Simpson, Brent; Willer, Robb (August 2015). "Beyond altruism: sociological foundations of cooperation and prosocial behavior". Annual Review of Sociology. 41: 43–63. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112242. "More generally, laboratory studies of socially decontextualized groups show that person-level factors alone are generally unable to sustain cooperation at the high levels observed in many human groups. As noted above, these groups initially show much variation in contributions, with more altruistic individuals giving at high levels and more egoistic people contributing little or nothing at all. Contributions of more altruistic individuals then decline over time in response to their egoistic counterparts' noncooperation (Fehr & Gintis 2007, Sell & Wilson 1991). Thus, in the absence of social mechanisms—e.g., clear enforceable norms, opportunities to gain reputation or status for contributions to group efforts, or social connections between group members—contributions fall to very low levels." (p. 56)
  108. ^ Schambra, William A. (May 22, 2014). "Opinion: The coming showdown between philanthrolocalism and effective altruism". Philanthropy Daily. Archived from the original on February 5, 2020. Retrieved February 5, 2020. Strategic philanthropists like Paul Brest seek only to apply metrics to the selection of groups once a cause has been selected. But, altruist critics note, this foolishly leaves the choice of the cause itself willy-nilly to the all-too-often idiosyncratic, short-sighted, selfish impulses of the donor.
  109. ^ Schubert, Stefan (March 10, 2017). "Understanding cause-neutrality". Centre for Effective Altruism (in American English). Archived from the original on February 20, 2020. Retrieved March 10, 2020. Schubert said that the term cause neutrality has been used by various authors with different meanings and different decision rules.
  110. ^ Schubert (2017) called this approach the "cause-flexible investments" strategy and compared it to other strategies such as "cause-divergent investments". With regard to these two strategies, he noted: "How to prioritize between these two strategies is an important and understudied question."
  111. ^ Wiblin, Robert (April 2016). "A framework for comparing global problems in terms of expected impact". 80,000 Hours. Retrieved 2021-12-05.
  112. ^ "Cause Selection". Open Philanthropy. Retrieved 2021-12-05.
  113. ^ MacAskill, William (September 2019b). "Practical ethics given moral uncertainty". Utilitas. 31 (3): 231–245. doi:10.1017/S0953820819000013. Archived from the original on 2021-02-15. Retrieved 2020-09-19.
  114. ^ Karnofsky, Holden (January 26, 2018). "Update on cause prioritization at Open Philanthropy". www.openphilanthropy.org. Archived from the original on February 23, 2020. Retrieved March 10, 2020.
  115. ^ "Your dollar goes further when you fund the right program". GiveWell. Archived from the original on 2019-08-30. Retrieved 2013-03-10.
  116. ^ A guide to the development, implementation and evaluation of clinical practice guidelines. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia: National Health and Medical Research Council. 1998. pp. 21–25. ISBN 1864960485. Archived from the original on 2019-01-13. Retrieved 2019-01-12.
  117. ^ Karnofsky, Holden (April 4, 2016). "Hits-based giving". www.openphilanthropy.org. Archived from the original on July 16, 2019. Retrieved March 10, 2020.
  118. ^ Zhang, Linch (June 21, 2016). "How Can You do the Most Good with Your Charitable Giving? This Expert's Answers Might Surprise You". Huffington Post. Archived from the original on April 6, 2017. Retrieved March 18, 2017.
  119. ^ Karnofsky, Holden. "We Should Expect Good Giving To Be Hard (SSIR)". Stanford Social Innovation Review (in American English). Stanford University. Archived from the original on March 18, 2017. Retrieved March 18, 2017.
  120. ^ "Room for More Funding | GiveWell". www.givewell.org. Archived from the original on 2019-08-12. Retrieved 2019-01-12.
  121. ^ Rosato, Donna; Wong, Grace (November 2011). "Best jobs for saving the world". CNN. Archived from the original on March 3, 2013. Retrieved February 28, 2013.
  122. ^ Todd, Benjamin. "Which Ethical Careers Make a Difference?: The Replaceability Issue in the Ethics of Career Choice". University of Oxford. Archived from the original on February 15, 2021. Retrieved March 11, 2017.
  123. ^ "'Replaceability' isn't as important as you might think (or we've suggested)". 80,000 Hours (in American English). 2015-07-27. Archived from the original on 2019-06-27. Retrieved 2019-01-12.
  124. ^ a b c MacAskill, William (March 10, 2014). "The history of the term 'effective altruism'". forum.effectivealtruism.org. Archived from the original on February 20, 2020. Retrieved February 2, 2020.
  125. ^ Ram, Aliya (December 4, 2015). "The power and efficacy of effective altruism". Financial Times. Archived from the original on August 6, 2018. Retrieved February 14, 2018.
  126. ^ de Lazari-Radek, Katarzyna; Singer, Peter (September 27, 2017). "Effective altruism". Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction. Very short introductions. Vol. 530. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 108–112. doi:10.1093/actrade/9780198728795.003.0001. ISBN 9780198728795. OCLC 965456936.
  127. ^ a b Rubenstein, Jennifer (14 December 2016). "The Lessons of Effective Altruism". Ethics & International Affairs. Archived from the original on 27 August 2018. Retrieved 26 August 2018.
  128. ^ Pitney, Nico (July 16, 2015). "Elon Musk To Address 'Nerd Altruists' At Google HQ". Huffington Post. Archived from the original on March 10, 2017. Retrieved March 11, 2017.
  129. ^ "Jaan Tallinn's Keynote - Effective Altruism Summit 2013". Exponential Times. November 13, 2013. Archived from the original on August 9, 2016. Retrieved April 11, 2015.
  130. ^ Shariatmadari, David (August 20, 2015). "Doing Good Better by William MacAskill review – if you read this book, you'll change the charities you donate to". The Guardian (in British English). ISSN 0261-3077. Archived from the original on June 22, 2017. Retrieved May 21, 2017.
  131. ^ Cowen, Tyler (August 14, 2015). "Effective Altruism: Where Charity and Rationality Meet". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on December 21, 2016. Retrieved May 21, 2017.
  132. ^ Schmidt, Christine (October 15, 2018). "Will Vox's new section on effective altruism... well, do any good?". Nieman Journalism Lab. Archived from the original on February 1, 2020. Retrieved February 1, 2020.
  133. ^ Matthews, Dylan (October 15, 2018). "Future Perfect, explained". Vox. Archived from the original on December 25, 2019. Retrieved December 8, 2018.
  134. ^ "Future Perfect". www.vox.com. Archived from the original on February 1, 2020. Retrieved February 1, 2020.
  135. ^ Matthews, Dylan (December 17, 2019). "These are the charities where your money will do the most good". Vox. Archived from the original on August 29, 2019. Retrieved February 1, 2020.
  136. ^ Illing, Sean (March 8, 2019). "Want less poverty in the world? Empower women". Vox. Archived from the original on December 9, 2018. Retrieved February 1, 2020.
  137. ^ Yglesias, Matthew (January 8, 2020). "Installing air filters in classrooms has surprisingly large educational benefits: $1,000 can raise a class's test scores by as much as cutting class size by a third". Vox. Archived from the original on February 1, 2020. Retrieved February 1, 2020.
  138. ^ Piper, Kelsey (November 19, 2018). "How technological progress is making it likelier than ever that humans will destroy ourselves". Vox. Archived from the original on December 9, 2018. Retrieved December 9, 2018.
  139. ^ Berger, Ken; Penna, Robert (November 25, 2013). "The Elitist Philanthropy of So-Called Effective Altruism". Stanford Social Innovation Review. Archived from the original on 2021-12-03. Retrieved 2021-12-05.
  140. ^ MacAskill, William (December 3, 2013). "What Charity Navigator Gets Wrong About Effective Altruism". Stanford Social Innovation Review. Archived from the original on 2021-12-03. Retrieved 2021-12-05.
  141. ^ Snow, Mathew (August 25, 2015). "Against Charity". Jacobin. Archived from the original on August 28, 2015. Retrieved September 5, 2016.
  142. ^ a b Berkey, Brian (2018). "The Institutional Critique of Effective Altruism" (PDF). Utilitas. 30 (2): 143–171. doi:10.1017/S0953820817000176. Archived (PDF) from the original on 13 September 2017. Retrieved 26 August 2018.
  143. ^ Ashford, Elizabeth (2018). "Severe Poverty as an Unjust Emergency". In Woodruff, Paul (ed.). The Ethics of Giving: Philosophers' Perspectives on Philanthropy. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 103–148. doi:10.1093/oso/9780190648879.003.0005. ISBN 9780190648879. OCLC 1025376469.

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]