In our class discussion today
regarding effective altruism and the debate between philanthropy from the head
versus the heart, my group made several interesting points. My personal opinion
is that philanthropy and volunteering should be a product of both passion and
calculation. Peter Singer’s argument took the calculation aspect to an extreme.
He used the example of someone training a guide dog to demonstrate his point;
if the money used to train and raise the guide dog was instead donated to help
cure people of trachoma in Africa, between 400 and 2,000 people could be cured
of blindness. However, if someone was passionate about both animals and helping
people in need, they might feel as if training a guide dog is more fulfilling
than simply donating their money. Additionally, I feel as if it is important
for people to see the effects of their donations or volunteer work;
philanthropy does not have to be beneficial to only one party. There is nothing
wrong with the philanthropist getting a sense of fulfillment and satisfaction
from their contributions.
This brings up another point
relating to effective altruism, doing work at home versus in another country.
The parochial view of philanthropy may seem selfish, but ultimately donating
money close to home may give the philanthropist more control over where their
money is going, and they may be able to make more informed decisions.
Information is more easily accessible if the potential philanthropist can
actually visit the affected people or places, or even just the organization
that will be carrying out the efforts.
Ultimately, I feel as if
discussions and debates over effective altruism are counterproductive. If an
individual feels passionate about a cause and chooses to put time and effort
towards it, they are more likely to spread the word about what they are doing,
and may stick with the organization for a longer time and repeat their
donations. If the same individual instead followed the guidelines for effective
altruism to a perfect point, they might wind up contributing time and money to
a cause they don’t have any passion for. They are then less likely to tell
others about the cause, and they may not repeat their philanthropic gestures.
Those who preach effective altruism should shift their values slightly and
instead recognize the worth of being passionate about the cause one is
contributing towards. This is not to say that organizations should not be
properly researched before someone chooses to put their resources towards them,
but simply that using both heart and head to choose how to behave philanthropically
is a suitable option. Instead of being high and mighty about only donating to
the most optimally effective organizations, people like Peter Singer and philanthropists
who criticize others for not being as effective as themselves should appreciate
and celebrate all acts of philanthropy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAmanda-
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your post and that you looked at philanthropy from both sides, the heart and the head. I agree with you that you need to find a balance between the two because too extreme on either end may lead to unproductive philanthropy work. However, at the end of the day I believe any kind of work has to have a beneficial impact. Effective altruism entails choosing the cause that will make the most difference, but I believe that any difference is a step in the right direction, whether having a small effect or a large one. I find myself to be deeply connected with my emotions so I see nothing wrong with choosing the passion route. An interesting question to consider is if people working with causes closely linked with their passions will be more productive and work harder in their charity work or if choosing the organization that you know will have the most benefit will still be the better choice? I also agree that there is nothing wrong with enjoying your philanthropy work and getting a sense of fulfillment from it. If you have made a change in any way you should be proud and motivated to continue your contributions. In Professor Campbell's Civic Engagement class we touched on this topic often due to an article we read called "To Hell with Good Intentions" that questioned whether people are volunteering for the right reasons or for personal benefit. Although the author is critical about people receiving fulfillment from service work I see no problem with it, because positive reinforcement will lead people to continue doing charitable acts while also feeling good about themselves, a double win.
Amanda,
ReplyDeleteI thought your post was insightful and brought up a lot of points that I myself thought about in class. I agree with you on your point about Effective Altruism potentially hindering someone’s sense of passion and accomplishment and as a result causing one lose interest in their philanthropic work. I myself find people most motivated to work and produce results when they feel connected and invested in what they are doing. Therefore, I also believe that perhaps the benefits of effective altruism are not enough to outweigh the potential risk of people losing interest and connection to philanthropy.
However, I also believe that while we have to pursue the causes that keep us interested in acts of giving it is also important to look beyond that and see what other issues need attention. While it is also nice to support local needs and see firsthand the results of giving, it is also important to and necessary to branch out and support global causes even if it does not provide that immediate sense of satisfaction accomplishment.
I guess I feel as though philanthropy should be a balance of doing what you feel passionate about and doing what needs to be done.
First off, hi guys! I'm super excited to be a part of your class discussions, as it seems you all have different viewpoints, but are open to hearing others. Though I have not had the chance to read all the materials, I watched Peter Singer's TEDTalk. I do agree that, in order to make a more informed and beneficial donation, you should really look at how far your money will go in support of your cause. You should do your research and see where your money is directly going, how many people it could possibly help, etc. Doing this extra step isn't something that should be required, but should most certainly be suggested. One can make a similar connection to how you would spend a large sum of money on say a laptop. You would first want to look at which one will give you the most for your money, but what also comes into play is your desires; your inherent wants based on maybe past experiences with other laptops or its aesthetics. I think that the same can be applied to the process that a philanthropist makes when they decide between specific charities, organizations, or research to donate to. Beyond the initial research, there is an entire personal layer that contributes to why we choose between causes. Because of this, I would have to disagree with Singer's blatant statement that "It is clear whats the better thing to do." People have many separate reasons behind the choices they make and saying that one charitable case is "better" than another doesn't really sit right with me. I do think that its important to look at how your money is used first and foremost, but if you agree with the direction of the cause AND you are able to find some comfort in the idea that you are helping progress that cause, then it shouldn't really matter if it helps the few or the many.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of effective altruism has led me to ask a lot of questions about what I previously held as fact. I feel as if people are misunderstanding the intentions of the effective altruism movement; I believe it offers us new insight into philanthropy. For too long people have donated their time and money to ineffectual organizations that dedicate resources to comparatively unimportant causes. Peter Singer, in his TED talk, speaks of this new concept of philanthropy, telling the audience that the money or time we spend could be used optimally.
ReplyDeleteLogically, it makes sense that we want our investment to have the greatest output possible, helping as many people as we can reach. We, as humans, should want to have the largest influence we could muster. Those who consider themselves philanthropic or charitable should desire to devote their resources to the *most* universally important causes. After all, many philanthropists are labeled as humanitarians, which means that they practice benevolence to all humans equally. This all makes sense but, in reality, is not all that true.
Humans are nearly incapable of true empathy to those far away. We have immense difficulty understanding the struggles of people we’ve never met or seen in places we’ve never been, so we cannot feel strong emotions for them. Even though we know that many people are in situations far worse than we could imagine, we cannot help but to push them to the backs of our minds. If we see a tragic incident occur in our own nation, however, we are able to identify with it. For example, Peter Singer speaks of a man who donated one of his kidneys, but for much less investment he could have saved the lives of people in impoverished nations. If someone is truly a humanitarian, wouldn’t he/she believe that donating a kidney is a foolish thing to do? The answer to this conundrum lies in human nature, that which we cannot control.
This leads us to the concept of human emotion playing a role in philanthropic decisions. A person doesn’t choose to give money or time to an organization based solely on the effectiveness of completing its goals. We must identify with an organization, love it, and believe in it to be able to back it. Humans need this to gain some personal reward from their generous actions or else, to us, it really isn’t worth it. Therefore, many people decide to give to organizations that may not be so great, but they are able to ensure that they can feel good about themselves. In one of the readings, the author states how “Philanthropy is the most selfish action one can do.” Since the formation of modern philanthropy, people keep choosing to donate to organizations which may not save nearly as many lives as others, but they’re perfectly fine with that thought. They still feel as if their contribution made a difference. Individuals don’t gain value for themselves based on how many lives they save, but rather how important the cause is to them on a personal level. We have both logical minds and emotional minds, but for the vast majority emotion trumps logical. The donations we make are justified so long as we can feel better about ourselves.
In an unnecessary and fastidious argument, I would argue that those like Bill & Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet support foreign causes because they believe, emotionally and logically, that effective altruism is the most personally important philanthropy. They gain the most personal value from helping as many as possible with the resources they have.
Talking in this entire tedious argument, the point I’m trying to make is that Peter Singer is quite aware of these mental and emotional attributes that force a limiting viewpoint of the world and how best to serve it. The goal of his TED talk is not to state the pointlessness of non-optimal spending of resources but rather to illustrate the importance of informing one’s self of the many different options that are within reach. He wants to make us aware of how far philanthropy can go and how much of a difference we can make with such a little investment.
Amanda,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your post and our group discussion in class that you referred to. I've been thinking a lot about our discussion and your ideas and they've brought up a few new points to mind.
The core of your criticism of Singer's "effective altruism" revolves around the idea of philanthropy centered around one's passions and interests bringing fulfillment to the philanthropist. This concept made me think back to the question regarding intent of philanthropy, discussed in our first class. Does philanthropy with one's interests in mind first devalue or take away from the act itself? Isn't philanthropy the act of selflessly bettering humanity?
Your thoughts and Singer's ideas both resonate with me in different ways. I think that effective altruism and philanthropy has a healthy balance formed from careful rationalism and human emotion. Your points on philanthropy being more effective when performed close to home and empassioned individuals being able to continue a chain of giving were both very well put. I do also agree with Singer's argument that philanthropy with its impact in mind as the main ingredient though.
One thing last thing I'd like to touch upon about your post is regarding Singer's intent. I feel like there may have been a misinterpretation of his talk during our discussion in class. As we are in a philanthropy course discussing philanthropy, it was obviously the scope to which our conversation was based in. After re-reading the transcript of the ted talk though, I feel like Singer isn't arguing for a cold and calculated model of philanthropy; in fact, he does not mention the word philanthropy once during his speech. Singer is arguing for effective altruism, and exactly only that: the most effective way to give selflessly. It's true that this idea intertwines with philanthropy a lot, but Singer's talk solely focuses on how to create the most impact with ones giving and how to give altruistically and with far less regard to ones own interests than "normal" philanthropy might imply.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAmanda, your post sums up really well what our group discussed in class. I was very inspired by how passionately you spoke on the subject. I agree with you that all acts of philanthropy should be celebrated and respected and would like to add on a few thoughts to compliment yours. It takes both the head and the heart to make meaningful and satisfying philanthropic contributions. I feel the passion has to come first. Philanthropy must stem from what one cares about and then grow from there. With your interests as an umbrella, you can explore the possibilities and ways to help that will be most beneficial to others and important to you.
ReplyDeleteFor example: in group discussion, I briefly mentioned how when I was younger my parents offered to let me pick a donation to donate money to around the holiday season. Being a theatre lover, I immediately turned to Broadway Cares/ Equity Fights AIDS. I had never researched the organization but had seen it advertised after performances for years and was attracted to its shiny branding. The organization promises to donate profits to AIDS/HIV prevention. When we did looked into BC/EFA, we found there was little information available as to where the money was going. The website was vague and unclear (this was several years ago and the organization has solidified significantly since then), and my parents felt uncomfortable using our money in a potentially non-effective way. However, we remained in the theatre realm and instead donated to our local Guild for the Arts.
This donation obviously did not change the world, and put in the same position now I would have researched other opportunities for giving through theatre to benefit others rather than remaining local. Had I known then what I’m learning now, I certainly would have searched for a way to spend my money (or my parents’ money) more productive. My donation was small and probably only contributed to the costume budget of a local show. However, even if it was not the most effective or far-reaching way to spend my money, I believe this should still be seen as philanthropy. Perhaps philanthropy in its smallest form, but definitely philanthropy. Singer’s equations and calculations for finding the most effective uses of money make a lot of sense but do not full capture the essence of what philanthropy is. Is it not a numbers game or a competition, but rather an act of improving what is important to you in the world. Looking to have the biggest impact with the resources you have, however, is a goal that can make one’s philanthropy both highly effective and personally meaningful.
Hi Amanda,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your thoughts on our class discussion and what exactly effective altruism means, and I agree with your suggestions to focus more on the passion of the giver and their devotion to the cause, rather than the "efficiency" of his or her donation.
To expand on this point, I would say that this approach is necessary because it is difficult, if not impossible, to truly quantify good. Because of this it is especially tricky to evaluate how effective or efficient an act of philanthropy is. Take, for example, the issue of world hunger. A donation of $25 to an organization that attempts to feed starving children would certainly not solve the issue immediately, but if it is given with passion and a true desire to alleviate such an extensive problem, is it fair to call a small contribution ineffective?
I think one's opinion on determining the efficiency of altruism depends on what one values. More practical individuals might say that the only way to completely eradicate an issue is to take an analytical approach to giving, and collect enough information to determine the best location for their money or time to go to. More empathetic individuals may argue that passion and intent are the most important factors in making their decisions.
I hesitate to say that either of these approaches is more correct than the other, because I believe striking a balance between the head and the heart of philanthropy is vital to effective service and donation.
Effective Altruism Reply:
ReplyDeleteAmanda, I really enjoyed reading your thoughts on effective altruism and found it to be very compelling and relevant Peter Singer’s argument. Your points are well-taken and easy to follow.
I couldn’t agree with you more that there is nothing wrong with “fulfillment and satisfaction” being byproducts of philanthropic efforts. In fact, it could be reasoned that fulfillment and satisfaction, derived from a sense of doing something you perceive as “good”, are among the cornerstones of philanthropy itself and essential to it. On home versus abroad, I again agree with your points. Doing something, anything, that helps another person or living thing, makes the world a better place to live or diminishes suffering in any small way, certainly cannot be held to be selfish. It’s a matter of preference and as autonomous beings we have a right, and may philosophers would argue a duty, to do that which we see fit. Your conclusion making the correlation between altruism and philanthropy “counter-productive” was, in my opinion, right on. If we all did a little then nobody would have to do a lot.