Most forms of do-gooding start out with a What (“I want to promote microfinance!”), move to a How (“maybe I should do a sponsored marathon?”) and simply take the Why for granted (“because of course microfinance is good!”).
Effective altruism, in contrast, starts with a Why and a How, and lets them determine the What. Let me explain:
The Why is to make the world as good a place as it can possibly be. Rather than merely aiming to make the world better than when we found it — "to make a difference" — we want to make the most difference. So, for example, rather than simply trying to find a development charity that “does good work”, Giving What We Can seeks to find those charities that do the very most to help people in developing countries with every pound or dollar they receive. In general, we seek out those activities that will do the most good with our time or money.
The How — how to find those activities that do the most good — is by using good evidence and good reasoning. Where a question concerns a matter of fact, we try to find the best empirical evidence that is relevant to that question. (An anecdote is bad, a double-blind randomized controlled trial is better, a well-performed meta-analysis is best.) Where a question concerns values, we use clear arguments, rational reflection, and the latest insights from ethics, economics, and psychology to help us come to the right view. So, for example, rather than going with feel-good slogans like “follow your passion”, or passing on anecdotes about specific people, at 80,000 Hours we’re busy digging into all the available academic research related to doing good through your career, and getting clear, conceptually, on what making a difference involves.
From these two ideas, the What follows. Effective altruists currently tend to think that the most important causes to focus on are global poverty, factory farming, and the long-term future of life on Earth. I'll talk more about the reasons why these are generally thought to be the highest-impact cause areas in later posts, but in each case, the reasoning is that the stakes are very high, and there is the potential to make a lot of progress. Right now, within the Centre for Effective Altruism, the What consists of the organisations listed to the right: organisations that, for example, promote donating a good chunk of one's income to the causes that most effectively fight global poverty (Giving What We Can and The Life You Can Save); or that advise individuals on which careers enable them to have the greatest positive impact (80,000 Hours); or that try to figure out how best to improve animal welfare (Effective Animal Activism). But these activities are just our current best guesses. If we had good evidence or arguments that showed that we could do more good by doing something else, then we'd do that instead.
Part of Introduction to Effective Altruism
Previous: Scope Insensitivity • Next: Cheerfully
When you say charities are disembodied entities, you mean giving aid or a check to some monolithic organization, who then distributes this, is impersonal.
While your experience of this “disembodiment” is correct—this is just the result of having a small, dedicated professional staff, distributing the aid fairly, effectively and efficiently.
If you wanted to distribute aid, this is probably the best way of doing it.
If you didn’t want this aid distributed, you can argue the particular aid is bad (worse than your classes) or that aid in general is bad. These argument are commonly made (there’s multiple camps/movements/literatures against poverty or development aid), but you won't find a lot of agreement here.
Your intuitions and concerns seem correct and important. It would be wonderful to speak and watch your students grow and become independent instead. It's not clear how to solve this problem.