Effective altruism¶

"Effective altruism" is such a hilarious rebranding of noblesse oblige. It's an attempt to launder grotesquely unequal social structures as being "natural constraints," around which the beneficiaries of those systems must "impartially calculate" the most deserving of pet causes. https://t.co/3wPp3Qe19O The supposed principle of "do the most good with the resources available" is pretty easily disproven by its proponents continuing to have any wealth at all. They apply that logic to choosing charities, but not to the systems that give them those resources in the first place. The classic "effective altruism" thought experiment: is it better to save a drowning child, knowing it will ruin your suit, or to let the child drown, sell the suit, and donate the proceeds to a charity that will use that money to save multiple children. Whatever choice a particular "effective altruist" finds more favorable, the pretext is never questioned. The question can only even be considered by someone who could conceive of owning a suit that's so expensive that its sale could save multiple lives. The dying children and the suit are considered from the beginning as being unrelated factors that the "altruist" has the option to make related, by "graciously" giving up the suit in favor of either destroying it to save one child or donating its value to save many. But the unexamined backdrop of this scenario is, of course, a society that directs labor and concentrates the value produced into fancy suits, while children are left to die -- unless the "right people" deign to willingly part with some small portion of their excess. The true ethical dilemma, then, is not whether to prioritize the life of the one child in front of the suit-wearer or many anonymous lives. It is whether or not the existence of a society in which someone could hold the lives of many in thrall to his whims is tolerable at all. That the suited man deserves the suit, and to be in a position to make this choice at all, is never questioned. It is the natural consequence of forces beyond his control. He has been thrust into a world where he is dripping in diamonds, and must struggle to use them responsibly. This is why "effective altruists" take such issue with the phrase "the purpose of a system is what it does." If that was the case, then those many lives that could be saved by simply selling their suits would only be in danger because of the system that gave them the suit. Their noble choice to donate a portion of their wealth to "the most effective charities" would transform from an act of altruism into a tiny, pathetic minimum interest payment on an astronomical ethical debt. One which could never be repaid without expunging ALL of their wealth. The only "effective altruism" would be dedicating one's life to the total abolition of poverty -- i.e. the destruction of the economic system that creates poverty in exchange for concentrating wealth and power into the hands of the few -- among them, every "effective altruist."