What Are Some Effective Altruistic Couples

Effective altruism

The effective onealtruism is a philosophy andsocial movementthat aims to make the best use of the limited resources of time and money in order to improve the lives of as many sentient beings as possible. Serve as a means for thisempirical Evidence and Rational Arguments.[1]

Effective altruists consider all causes and actions and then act in a way that their actions have the greatest positive impact. [2] [3] This evidence-based approach differentiates effective altruism from traditional altruism or classical charity. The philosopher Peter Singer is one of the most famous proponents of effective altruism. [4]

1.1. Cost use Bill

When applying the concept of cost-benefit analysis to charitable causes, the cost-effectiveness (cost-effectiveness analysis) refers to the amount of good that is achieved per euro. For example, the economics of health interventions can be measured in quality-corrected years of life (years of life that are quality, i.e., health-adjusted).

Effective giving is an important part of effective altruism because some charities are far more effective than others. [5] In addition, some aid organizations simply fail to achieve their goals. [6] Among the remaining organizations, some get far better results with less money than others. [7] [8] Organization researcherGivewell have calculated that some charities are hundreds or even thousands of times more effective than others. [7]

Although economics is a relatively new concept in welfare, it is widely used by economists. Many effective altruists come from philosophy, economics, mathematics, or areas that favor rational and quantitative thinking. [9]

Effective altruists also advocate the idea of ​​“room for more resources” that an aid organization has: this idea says that one should not choose a charitable organization based on what it has already achieved, but what it can achieve with a donation in the future .

1.2. Prioritizing the cause for which you are committed

Many effective altruists think that it is very important to find out for what cause.causes) you should do your best, d. H. which thing (e.g. health, poverty, inequality, education) is most effective. [10] In this regard, effective altruism differs from traditional altruism or charity.

Effective altruists want the effectiveness and evidence of aid to be checked. Although this is already in practice in the area of ​​nonprofit organizations, such a review usually only takes place within certain subject areas, for example in the area of ​​education or climate change. In general, it is not yet in practice for the various thematic fields of aid to be analyzed critically and comparatively and incorporated into a strategic concept in order to increase efficiency. Effective altruists do not put one thing for granted at the beginning of their supportive considerations, such as animal welfare and animal rights or human rights. Instead, the matter itself should be selected on the basis of efficiency considerations. [11]

Effective altruists try to choose the most effective things based on widely accepted values ​​like preventing suffering. Then they make their time and money available to actions and organizations that efficiently pursue these goals. Several organizations are researching the selection of the best thing. [12] [13] Many effective altruists think that the most important things are fighting poverty in the developing world, reducing the suffering of factory farmed animals, and caring for the long-term future of humanity. [10]

Effective altruists reject the view that the lives of some are more precious than others. For example, they believe that a person in a developing country has the same worth as a person from an industrialized country. For example, Peter Singer writes:

It makes no difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor's child ten meters from me or a Bengali, whose name I will never know, who lives 10,000 miles away. [...] The moral view requires us to look beyond the interests of our own society. So far […], this could hardly have been possible, but it is entirely possible now. From a moral point of view, preventing the starvation of millions of people outside our society must be seen at least as urgently as maintaining property and norms in our society. [14]

In addition, many effective altruists believe that future generations will have the same moral worth as human beings now, so they focus on reducing existential risks to humanity. Others believe that animal interests have the same moral weight as comparable human interests, and they focus on reducing animal suffering e.g. B. in factory farming to prevent. [15]

Thomas Pogge argues against this view and said: "What matters morally is not just how we influence people, but how we act through the rules we make." [16] Thomas Nagel argues similarly, referring to Derek Parfit Terminology of "agent-neutral" and "agent-relative" reasons. [17]

1.4. Counterfactual reasoning

Effective altruists argue that counterfactual reasoning is important in determining which actions will maximize positive effects. Many people believe that the best way to help people is through direct methods, such as working for a charity or social service. [18] [19] Because charities and social service providers typically have many members or supporters willing to work for them, effective altruists compare the amount of good that someone could do in a conventional altruistic career (such as a doctor) the situation in which the same job would be filled with the next best candidate. On this line of reasoning, the impact of choosing a conventional altruistic career may be smaller than it initially appears. [20] For example, a career in medicine is often intuitively and ethically rated very highly, because you save many human lives directly, although the decision to become a doctor only saves as many lives as the difference between your own performance and that of the next best candidate.

The earn-to-donate strategy (earning to give) is suggested for effective altruists. It is to pursue a high paying career with the goal of donating much of the money you earn to charity. Some effective altruists argue that the marginal impact of potentially unethical behavior in such a lucrative career (e.g. unethical behavior as an investment banker) is small because, if one were not to pursue the career, someone else would independently make the same decisions, while the impact of the donations would be great. [21] [22]

However, some dispute this principle. Bernard Williams cites a similar example of a job in a chemical weapons factory to fight against the

To argue utilitarianism. [23] According to Williams, utilitarianism inappropriately requires that people act in ways that violate their own integrity. [24]

1.5. The views on excessive (supererogatory) actions

Several influential philosophers of effective altruism, including Peter Singer and Peter Unger, oppose the view that donating to charity is undue. Aexcessive Action is one that is good but not morally imperative. Effective altruists do not fundamentally deny the existence of excessive benefits. However, they consider donations to charities, which are very effective in helping the poorest people in the world, to be morally imperative. Singer and Unger both use different thought experiments to illustrate this point. The basic structure of the thought experiment is that you meet a person in mortal danger and you could help the person yourself with little effort. If you don't help, the person will die. Most people say it is morally wrong not to help. Singer and Unger conclude that it is morally wrong not to donate to charities that can save lives with few resources. This argument assumes that physical distance to a person does not affect whether you have to help a person. This is a key principle in effective altruism.

The philosopher Peter Singer has authored several works on effective altruism, includingThe Life You Can Save. In it, he argues that people should evaluate how to use their donations most effectively. [25] In his articleHunger, prosperity and morality he claims that people have a duty to help people in need:

If it is in our power to prevent something bad without sacrificing something of comparable moral importance, then we should be morally obliged to do it. [26]

He founded the non-profit organization 'The Life You Can Save', which advocates donating to particularly effective charities. He is a member ofGiving what we can, an effective altruism organization that encourages people to donate 10 percent of their income to charity. Singer himself donates at least 25% of his income to charity. [27] [28]

Toby Ord is an ethicist at Oxford University. He advocates consequentialist ethics and deals with global poverty and disaster risks. [29] He founded the organization "Giving what we can". Ord lives on £ 18,000 ($ 27,000) a year and donates the remainder of his income to charity. [30]

As a student of John Rawls, Pogge approaches effective altruism from a less consequentialist point of view. Pogge is a member ofGiving what we can as well as theHealth Impact Fundwho tries to make modern drugs available to poor people at low cost, [31] [32] and the organizationAcademics Stand Against Povertywho has favourited scientists to have a greater positive impact on poverty in the world.

Pogges bookWorld poverty and human rights argues that people in affluent democracies are actively hurting people in the developing world: "Most of us not only starved people, we are participating in starving them" [33] Therefore, in contrast to Singer and Unger who claim, that we need to help people in need because of positive obligations, Pogge believes that the responsibility to help the world's poor stems from the fact that people in the first world are actively harming people in other countries by lending to corrupt governments. [34]

In his bookLive and Let Die Unger presents several arguments that people in the developed world have a strong moral obligation to others. [35] An example of a thought experiment is "The vintage Sedan":

You are not really rich, your only luxury in life is a Mercedes classic car that you have restored to mint condition with a lot of time, attention and money ... One day you stop at the intersection of two small country roads that are both rarely used. You hear a voice screaming for help, you get out and see a man who is injured and covered in blood. The man assures you that his wound is limited to one of his legs, the man also informs you that he studied medicine for two years. And although he was de-registered in his sophomore year for cheating, which explains his penniless status since then, he has expertly tied his leg near the wound with his shirt to stop the blood loss. So there is no urgent danger to life as you are informed, but there is a great risk that the man will lose his leg. This can be prevented if you drive him to a rural hospital 50 miles away. “How did that happen to the wound?” You ask. He - an avid bird watcher - admits that he trespassed on a nearby field and cut himself on the rusty barbed wire when he left it carelessly. If you want to help this intruder, you have to put it over your lovely back seat. But then your fine upholstery will be soaked in blood and the car will cost over five thousand dollars to restore. So you go away The next day the man is picked up by another driver, he survives but loses the injured leg.

Unger points out that most people say this behavior is morally reprehensible and you should be willing to accept the cost of restoring your car if it will save the man's life. He contrasts this reaction with our reactionsThe envelope:

There is something in your mailbox from the (US Committee on) UNICEF. After reading it, you are correct to believe that unless you send a check for $ 100 to Unicef ​​soon, more than thirty children will soon die instead of living many years.

Unger argues that our various responses to the thought experiments are morally inconsistent and therefore our duty to donate to UNICEF is as great as our duty to rescue the hypothetical intruder in "The Vintage Limousine". Unger says that a relatively wealthy person “like you and me must do a lot to support effective groups like Oxfam and Unicef, with most of the money and property now owned and with most of what is in the foreseeable future comes to that. "[35] [36]

Shelly Kagan opensThe Limits of Morality with the assertion "Morality requires that you select - from those not otherwise prohibited - the act which can reasonably be expected to have the best overall effect." [37] He defends this claim with a detailed analysis both the various possible views on moral options and moral constraints, as well as how these might be defended. He notes that there is a connection between believing in the existence of moral choices and believing in the existence of moral compulsions; a person who believes that there are ways to act sub-optimally will almost certainly also advocate some constraints on our potential behavior.

The principles of effective altruism can mean significant lifestyle changes. [35] Many effective altruists try to live frugally by the standards of wealthy nations so that they can donate more. A couple of effective altruists have been in theWashington Postpresented. It lived on $ 10,000 in 2012. In an average month, they spent less than $ 200 on groceries and about $ 300 on unnecessary purchases. They began to live with the husband's parents to save further costs. [38] Some effective altruists try to pursue a career and earn as much as possible in order to be able to donate more money. [39] This is how an effective altruist works inWashington Postwas introduced as a quantitative analyst for a financial company and donates half of his salary. [38]

Other effective altruists consciously live comparatively less frugally and donate less, with the aim of making effective altruism appear attractive to others, to motivate them to live more frugally and beneficially and thus to achieve more good overall.

·Effective Altruism Foundation in Basel, think tank and project forge at the intersection of ethics and science, emerged from the Swiss regional group of the Giordano Bruno Foundation [40]

·THINK, university association with locations in Bern and St. Gallen [41]

·Giving what we can, an international society promoting the most cost-effective poverty reduction charities. She researches the effectiveness of charities, encourages smart giving, and builds a community of people who want to give a significant portion of their income to help make it as effective as possible. [42]

·80,000 hours, an ethical career counseling service for people who want to use their careers to make a positive impact in the world. [43]

·Animal Charity Evaluators, a non-profit organization that seeks the most effective ways to improve the living conditions of animals. [44]

·The Life You Can Save, a movement that works to fight extreme poverty by donating to very effective charities. The organization was founded by the philosopher Peter Singer after the publication of his bookThe Life You Can Save founded. [45]

·The High Impact Network, an organization that promotes ideas of effective altruism by holding local meetings. [46]

·Instituto Ética, Racionalidade e Futuro da Humanidade, a Brazilian organization that promotes effective donation and researches how technology can help future generations. [47]

Peter Singer represents the following effective non-profit organizations: [48]

· GiveWell

· Against Malaria Foundation

· Schistosomiasis Control Initiative

· Vegan outreach

· The Humane League

The Future of Humanity Institute

The is particularly controversialEarning to give Idea to start a "high-yielding career" in a potentially unethical industry in order to donate more money. David Brooks, columnist of theNew York Times, criticized this idea. He believes that most people in finance and other high-paying industries make money for selfish reasons, and that if you are an effective altruist and work with these people, you become less altruistic yourself. [49] Some effective altruists also see this danger and try to reduce it through online communities, public guarantees, and donations to donor-advised funds. [50] Brooks also asks whether children in distant lands should really be given the same moral value as children in the immediate vicinity. He claims that morality should "ennoble internally," a position similar to virtue ethics. [49]

In response to criticism of this aspect of effective altruism, theNational Review Questions whether the industries that are widely believed to be unethical (such as the financial industry) are truly unethical. The author claims that these industries often produce more benefits than harm. [51] The business magazineEuromoney has praised itself as effective altruism for its emphasis on individual charitable action. [52]

Paul Brest of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, a Givewell funder, wrote an article for theStanford Social Innovation Review and concluded in the letter: "All in all, my unsolicited advice to advocates of effective altruism is to stay on the same course." [53] In contrast, Ken Berger and Robert Penna of Charity Navigator wrote a long criticism of the philosophy of the effective altruism in theStanford Social Innovation Review.Their review was posted on the website in November 2013. [54] The criticism provoked strong reactions from effective altruists, both in the comments on the SSIR website and elsewhere, including a response from William MacAskill, which was also published on SSIR. [55] [56] [57] [58]

Some sympathizers of effective altruism have also written reviews, partly because they really believe in their criticism and partly as an ideological Turing test. [59] [60]

· Effective giving ("effective donation")

· High impact philanthropy

· Earning to give

· Room for more funding ("Room for more funding")

Shelly Kagan:The Limits of Morality. Clarendon Press, Oxford 1991, ISBN 0-19-823916-5.

· Peter Singer:The Life You Can Save. Acting Now to End World Poverty. Random House, New York NY 2009, ISBN 978-1-4000-6710-7.

· Peter Singer:Effective altruism. A guide to ethical living. Suhrkamp Verlag, Berlin 2016, ISBN 978-3-518-58688-4.

· Peter Unger:Living High and Letting Die. Our Illusion of Innocence. Oxford University Press, New York NY et al. 1996, ISBN 0-19-510859-0.

William MacAskill:Doing Good Better. Effective Altruism and a Radical New Way to Make a Difference. Guardian Books and Faber & Faber Ltd, London 2015, ISBN 978-1-78335-049-0. German translation:Doing good better. How we can change the world with effective altruism. Berlin: Ullstein, 2016, ISBN 978-3-550-08140-8.

1.Effective altruism. How can the lives of as many sentient beings as possible be improved? Giordano Bruno Foundation, 14. August 2014, accessed on August 15, 2014 (article, German).

2.http: //effective-altruism.com

3.http: //www.thelifeyoucansave.org/ReadAboutUs/Organization.aspx

4.http: //blog.ted.com/2013/03/01/effective-altruism-peter-singer-at-ted2013/

5.Your dollar goes further when you fund the right program. GiveWell, accessed July 27, 2014.

6.Giving 101: The basics. GiveWell. Retrieved February 28, 2013.

7.Your dollar goes further overseas. GiveWell. Retrieved February 28, 2013.

8.Holden Karnofsky:Hunger here vs. hunger there. GiveWell. Retrieved February 28, 2013.

9. Peter Singer:The Why and How of Effective Altruism. In:TED. TED Conferences, LLC. Retrieved July 17, 2013.

10.William MacAskill:What Is Effective Altruism?. In:Effective Altruism. Retrieved July 17, 2013.

11.Holden Karnofsky:Strategic cause selection. In:The GiveWell Blog. GiveWell. Retrieved June 22, 2013.

12.Causes. In:80,000 hours. Center for Effective Altruism. Retrieved June 22, 2013.

13.GiveWell Labs Overview. GiveWell. Retrieved July 27, 2014.

14.Singer 1972, pp. 231-232, 237.

15.Animal Charity Evaluators. Retrieved July 27, 2014.

16. Thomas W. Pogge:Responsibilities for Poverty-Related Ill Health. In:Ethics & International Affairs. Volume 16, No. 2, 2002, pp. 71-79, doi: 10.1111 / j.1747-7093.2002.tb00398.x.

17. Thomas Nagel:The limits of objectivity. 1979.

18.Best jobs for saving the world. In:CNN, November 2011. Retrieved February 28, 2013.

19. Aimee Hosler:10 "helping" professions and how to train for them. Schools.com. June 14, 2011. Retrieved February 28, 2013.

20. Benjamin J. Todd:Just What Is 'Making a Difference'? - Counterfactuals and Career Choice. In:80,000 hours. Center for Effective Altruism. Retrieved July 17, 2013.

21. Benjamin Todd:Which ethical careers make a difference?. Retrieved July 27, 2014.

22.William MacAskill:Replaceability, Career Choice, and Making a Difference. In:Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

23 Bernard Williams:A critique of utilitarianism inUtilitarianism: For and against, P. 97 ff. Cambridge University, Cambridge 1973

24 Damian Cox, Marguerite La Caze, Michael Levine:Integrity. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2013. Retrieved March 7, 2013.

25. Peter Singer:The Life You Can Save: Acting now to end world poverty, Random House, New York 2009

26.Famine, Affluence, and Morality (PDF) 1972. Retrieved May 23, 2011.

27.List of Members. Retrieved November 22, 2012.

28.FAQ on Singer's webpage at Princeton. Princeton.edu. Retrieved May 23, 2011.

29.Toby Ord:Academic Site. In:A mirror clear. Retrieved March 2, 2013.

30. Tom Geoghegan:Toby Ord: Why I'm giving £ 1m to charity. In:BBC News, 2010-12-163. Retrieved March 2, 2013.

31. Thomas Pogge, Aidan HollisThe Health Impact Fund: Making New Medicines Accessible for All. Incentives for Global Health, 2008.

32.Medicine for the 99 percent. September 2011. Retrieved July 27, 2014.

33. ISBN 0745641431

34.Barbara meat:Book Review: Thomas Pogge, World Poverty and Human Rights. In:Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. Volume 6, No. 4, 2003, pp. 455-458, doi: 10.1023 / B: ETTA.0000004700.20750.0d.

35. ISBN 0195108590

36. Martha Nussbaum:If Oxfam ran the world. In:London Review of Books, 9/4/1997. Retrieved March 7, 2013.

37. Shelly Kagan:The Limits of Morality (1991)

38. Matthews, Dylan. “Join Wall Street. Save the World. "Washington Post, May 31, 2013.http: //www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/31/join-wall-street-save-the-world/

39. "Earning to Give."80,000 hours.http://80000hours.org/earning-to-give

40.http: //ea-stiftung.org/

41.http: //think-switzerland.org/

42.http: //givingwhatwecan.org/

43.http: //80000hours.org/about-us

44.http: //www.animalcharityevaluators.org

45.http: //thelifeyoucansave.com/idea

46.http: //www.thehighimpactnetwork.org/about

47.http: //www.ierfh.org/br/Objetivos.html

48 Peter Singer:The why and how of effective altruism. TED. Retrieved May 21, 2013.

49 Brooks, David. "The Way to Produce a Person."New York Times. June 3, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/opinion/brooks-the-way-to-produce-a-person.html?_r=0

50. "FAQ."80,000 hours. http://80000hours.org/faq#faq-what-is-earning-to-give

51.Reihan Salam:The Rise of the Singerians. In:National Review. National Review Online. Retrieved July 17, 2013.

52 Kanika Saigal: