Effective altruism is a philosophy concept that decides what would be the most successful ways to help others by using proof from evidence and rational thinking. Effective Altruism is not an easy thing to just get people to agree on. It’s a very skeptical concept because effective altruist believes that if we are able to save a life, at a sacrifice of things we like and use ourselves, we should be morally constrained to help. Effective altruism causes you to really think outside the box about choosing how you can give to decrease the death toll.
Effective Altruism also makes you think outside the box when thinking about where you should give your money to so that it would be able to save the most lives with what you are willing to give. It causes you think about stuff that we honestly don’t want to think of. A lot of the beliefs from that concept cause you to feel guilty about doing purchases or behaviors that you normally wouldn’t think twice about.
In chapter 2 of Peter Singer’s book, “The most good you can do”, it states, “quoting scientific studies that shows the risk of dying as a result of kidney donation to be only one in four thousand, he says that not making the donation would have meant he valued his life at 4,000 times that of a stranger, a valuation he finds totally unjustified” …the reason many people don’t understand his desire to donate a kidney is that they don’t understand math” (Singer 69 ). Giving your own kidney to a complete stranger is another level of charitable giving.
127 our experts are availableright now
Although there are ways people give but someone who is giving their kidney to a complete stranger is a type of giving that is much larger than what most people are willing to do for a complete stranger. I think the kidney donation is the most effective example I can use to really show my understanding of effective altruism. The kidney donation to a stranger is showing how effective altruism is a concept of taking care of lives of people you know absolutely nothing about and literally giving a part of yourself to a complete stranger.
It’s easy to think you would save a dying or endangered person right in front of you, but effective altruism is saving a life of a person you don’t know or even have a relationship with, or someone you can’t physically see in danger right in front of you. You just know you are trying to save the most lives and do the most good. Effective altruists value a lot because you can measure the cost per life saved to help prevent the least amount of suffering. For example if I have $20,000 to donate, I would rather give it to an organization that would be able to save a life for $3,000 rather than one that can save a life for $6,000 because they would rather save the most amount of lives with what they have to donate.
In chapter 5 of, the most Good you can do, the book shows how there is a Buddhist nun named Cheng Yen Buddhist who has impacted countess lives. In chapter 5, it states,” When Cheng Yen was twenty-nine, she saw an indigenous woman whose family had physically carried her for eight hours because she was suffering from labor complications. The pregnant woman and her family were not able to afford the expenses needed for her to receive treatment. Since the woman couldn’t afford the services for her she had no other option but for her family to carry her back while she just continued to just suffer.
In response on chapter 5 Singer states, “In response Cheng li organized a group of thirty housewives, each of whom put aside a few cents each day to establish a charity fund for needy families…Gradually word spread and more people joined…Cheng Yen began to raise funds for a hospital. Since then her foundation Tzu Chi has established six more hospitals” (Singer 60). Even though this woman has truly impacted millions of lives in numerous ways, according to Peter Singer’s moral doctrine on effective altruism Cheng yen wasn’t an effective altruist, therefore meaning she is not really a moral person.
Saying Cheng Yen isn’t a person of moral conduct and not an effective altruist is so false. An effective altruist doesn’t always just do the things that think seems like it’s helping the greatest, they really think on it so they can really figure out what will truly be the most successful, and then they do it. That is exactly what Cheng did. She saw a terrible problem when that pregnant woman was not able to receive the urgent medical help simply because she couldn’t afford it, and made a difference.
In reality, if the majority of us were in Cheng’s shoes at the time we would see the woman not getting proper healthcare and we would feel terrible but go on with our lives, but she didn’t just do that. Cheng behaved like a true person with moral character by trying to benefit others who are in need of medical services who are less fortunate. Cheng chose kept marginal utility in mind when dealing worth her foundation Tzu Chi by realizing that you should help others but not to the point that you become poor yourself. Although she lives austerely she still has enough money to live off of.
If I were Herbert Morrison who was a British War Cabinet member in the year of 1944 I would have chosen today that it wouldn’t be morally right to decide that the people that are living south of London would not be to live, but the people living in Central London could stay alive. I would be an effective altruist because although more lives make sure that no harm is done even if the good tremendously surpass amount of suffering done. With the effective altruist position, I would have to disagree with the idea that it’s ok to sacrifice lives even if it means many more people can live, because everyone’s life counts. No one person has more reason to live then another person. It shouldn’t matter if many more people can live with the help of some lives because who are we to say that innocent people deserves to die so others can live ?
In chapter 7 , Singer says ,”a Effective Altruist donate to charities that , instead of making an emotional appeal to prospective donors, can demonstrate that they will use donations to save lives and reduce suffering in a way that is highly cost-effective”(Singer 75).There is a conflict between David Hume and reason Immanuel Kant, Henry Sidgwick in ethics that Singer In chapter 7 Hume says, “There is no such passion in human minds as the love of mankind , merely as much , independent of personal qualities, of services, or of relation to themselves”.
Effective altruism is a way of feeling satisfied with your life. Instead of just spending money on pointless purchases that won’t really impact how you feel. However, when you are giving back you can find finding fulfillment in life from doing good things. Although effective altruists say are trying to help out people who are in need, the feelings they get from giving can also benefit the giver by knowing you’re really helping others and could even be saving lives.
In chapter 7, it states, “notice that Sidwick does not say William that people who recognize the importance of acting for the good of the whole lack emotional motivation; on the contrary, he thinks their recognition of the importance of acting for the good of the whole brings about an emotional response within them “This shows how Hume’s proclamation about the explanation being the slave of the passions in a completely different way. From a person who is a utilitarian, their feelings can be irrational at times. Williams states that whenever you are choosing what to do, if you are a utilitarian, you should give those feelings. The correct thing to do is to give off the most happiness to as many people as possible to maximize utility by giving the most happiness to the most amount of people.
In The most good you can do, it states, “Bernard Williams argued that human beings are not the kind of creatures who can take “the point of view of the universe” (Singer 85). Bernard Williams’ doctrine of utilitarilsm is an assertion that that utilitarianism is obligated to the doctrine of negative responsibility. The negative responsibility concept is that something is to blame not only for the consequences that one has created from one’s own behavior, but that they are in deed responsible is also responsible for the things that is the aftermath of what one allows to happen to themselves.
Utilitarianism is when people truly believe that it is their own fault for what they accept to happen and what they are unable to stop themselves from doing. Bernard seems to think that being an effective altruist is completely miserable and like a huge sacrifice. However when you are an effective altruist giving back doesn’t feel like you’re giving up it just feels like you’re doing what’s right. In the book it states, “doing this is not therefore, altruism in a sense that involves giving up what one would rather be doing , nor does it involve alienation or a loss of integrity as Bernard Williams claimed . Effective altruist aren’t miserable at all they know that what they are doing for others is allowing less world suffering, greater life expectancy, and overall more happiness around the world.
Harold Karnosky is the cofounder of Give Well . Give well is a nonprofit organization that discovers amazing foundations and to post all of the information to potential donors to figure out where they should give their donations too . In The most you can give it states, “Holden Karnofsy , the cofounder of Give Well, has blogged about what he sees as the misconception that effective altruist are, in order to act as rationally as possible, suppressing their passions…That he insists ,isn’t the case. Instead he writes, “effective altruist is what we are passionate about” (Singer 92). In the book it shows how Holden blog post on him explaining he would have a difficult time to change interest in something if he felt he could be doing even more good by changing to a different. This controversy led to Uri Katz , who is a graduate student to wonder about that concept.
In summary,Uri asked Karnofsky if he woke up one day just wanting to stop working over Give Well , and instead work at a soup kitchen what would he do sense he knows he would be doing the most help working “I would have at Get Well ? I believe in the side of being the most logical for effective altruism. I think not working at the soup kitchen would be the best choice because you will be doing entirely more good then you could at a soup kitchen. If anything, you can work at the soup kitchen on your off days or when you have extra free time. That way you are still doing the most you can do from working for Givewell, but you can still do fulfill your passion of working at the soup kitchen
Thought processes are used to makes you imagine the outcome that seems the most reasonable of a speculation even without proof being given. Thought processes make you really think outside the box and use your imagination. In chapter eleven , Singer asks us to make a hypothetical choice of whether we should contribute to the making of a new wing for an art museum, or to donate to an corporation that is trying to decrease the occurrence of trachoma ,which is a disease that causes blindness . One point to consider is that art museum with the wing will give an expected fifty years of service that can allow people to have an enjoyable art experience.
Singer estimated that it will improve the experience of 100,000 people visiting the art museum. On the contrary, if you chose the tracheotomy side you will be contribution to charity that would allow 1,000 people to not go through blindness for fifteen years. The argument in the scenario shows how some causes are objectively better than others because people’s eyes and their ability to see is way more important than somebody’s aesthetic enjoyment they get from an art museum at the sacrifice of countless people’s eyes. Who would really allow someone to not be able to see out their eyes in order for them to have a nice time at an art museum?
Singer states, “The remaining uncertainty is the cost of preventing or curing blindness, but the margin of error in my example is great enough for us to conclude that the sums the Metropolitan Museum of Art and MoMA have spent and are planning to spend on their extensions and renovations would have done more good if used to restore o preserve the sight of people too poor to pay for such treatments …We can now see that giving them to art museums for a renovation would not be the most good (Singer 123).
Whenever values do not compare to each other in a certain way they are incommensurable. Melissa Berman is a president and chief executive officer of Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisers. Melissa read a critique of Singer and defended it. In chapter 11, Singer shows Melisa says, “The arts are not simply transitionary entertainment…They are how we show culture, challenge thinking and experience the world…They are an economic challenge and an aid to learning” (Singer 123) Singer’s attempt to compare incommensurable values was not successful because people who are appreciates of art would disagree that giving funds to art museums isn’t the most good. Even though Singer said he isn’t saying that these museums should have done that, he still implied that donating funds to art museums is not the most good.
