Effective Altruism’s central message can be summarized as the moral imperative to do the most good you can. As it exists, effective altruism currently struggles most with the "can" part of that call.

Moral Imperative 

Most people already believe we "ought" to try to do good or live a good life. This is moral imperative, and what effective altruism has to offer beyond just having something to say about the metaphysical world. Effective Altruists consider themselves driving force for shaping the world to how it ought to be.

Do

We have power as moral agents and can do good. So we should, through charity, vocation, or evangelization.

The Most

We should pay attention to scope-insensitivity, biases, trade-offs, and try to maximize impact when we can. This is where the effectiveness mindset comes into play. The idea that we are all equal, there is a lot of inequality, and there are many ways to spend time and money outside of just ourselves means that there are massive opportunities to spend time and money not just doing a little more good, but a lot more good. One of the especially clearest and most powerful messages of effective altruism turns out to flow from this insight in evaluating charities that try to save lives. It turns out helping those most in need in the poorest parts of the world is far more useful than helping those in the richest parts of the world.

Good 

What is a good life? Expansion of our moral circle and moral reasoning to include those outside our inner circle to those who we don't meet or may have less power or influence is a compelling imperative as well. Once again, the call to send money to those in the most need despite never being able to interact with them is a challenging call. The recognition of the power that wealth has can be humbling. Giving consideration to the even less powerful, sentient creatures beyond humanity and beyond our short time on earth can help to cultivate a thoughtfulness in living as well.

Can 

Effective Altruism is most compelling in illuminating the insight that "can implies ought" especially to the most powerful of humanity in the world. Giving a framework for those of us in rich and powerful countries that we can do a lot of good in the world and so we must try to do as much good as we can. 

But ought also implies can. And effective altruism has no answer, or very few, for when people have no power. Effective altruism has very little answer for recognizing lack of power and how to live a good life in that lack of power.  Or aspects of people's lives where they are broken and unable to do the most good they can. This means EA has very little to offer or include for the least powerful of society. 

And in not inviting in or grappling with answers for the less powerful, this leads to a second problem for EA. EA is in danger of institutional value drift and not calling the powerful to support the least powerful in the most effective ways. From someone outside looking into EA it likely looks like AI safety or earning to give is much more "warm fuzzies" than "utilons." Maybe I'm wrong about this, but it seems conveniently easy to justify becoming a powerful person as the recipe for morally upright living.

“Do the hard thing” is a thing my spouse says to herself a lot. This mantra is a reminder that it is often easy to find some justification that the easy thing is also the right thing to do. It would be very convenient if it just so happened that a lot of very smart people discovered the way to do the most good is to become more powerful people through work in AI or earning to give. And powerful people just so happen to be able to do a lot of good while also enjoying comfortable lives without interacting with suffering or poor people.

But this is not at all the hard thing. This is an easy thing that allows Effective Altruism to become a network of rich, powerful people that need not talk to others to find out that maybe the giving and serving isn’t all that powerful for people most in need who won't find a place in Effective Altruism.

I believe in the moral imperative to do the most good you can. But in order to do that, you might just have to do the hard thing.

Comments


No comments on this post yet.
Be the first to respond.
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 5m read
 · 
This work has come out of my Undergraduate dissertation. I haven't shared or discussed these results much before putting this up.  Message me if you'd like the code :) Edit: 16th April. After helpful comments, especially from Geoffrey, I now believe this method only identifies shifts in the happiness scale (not stretches). Have edited to make this clearer. TLDR * Life satisfaction (LS) appears flat over time, despite massive economic growth — the “Easterlin Paradox.” * Some argue that happiness is rising, but we’re reporting it more conservatively — a phenomenon called rescaling. * I test rescaling using long-run German panel data, looking at whether the association between reported happiness and three “get-me-out-of-here” actions (divorce, job resignation, and hospitalisation) changes over time. * If people are getting happier (and rescaling is occuring) the probability of these actions should become less linked to reported LS — but they don’t. * I find little evidence of rescaling. We should probably take self-reported happiness scores at face value. 1. Background: The Happiness Paradox Humans today live longer, richer, and healthier lives in history — yet we seem no seem for it. Self-reported life satisfaction (LS), usually measured on a 0–10 scale, has remained remarkably flatover the last few decades, even in countries like Germany, the UK, China, and India that have experienced huge GDP growth. As Michael Plant has written, the empirical evidence for this is fairly strong. This is the Easterlin Paradox. It is a paradox, because at a point in time, income is strongly linked to happiness, as I've written on the forum before. This should feel uncomfortable for anyone who believes that economic progress should make lives better — including (me) and others in the EA/Progress Studies worlds. Assuming agree on the empirical facts (i.e., self-reported happiness isn't increasing), there are a few potential explanations: * Hedonic adaptation: as life gets
 ·  · 38m read
 · 
In recent months, the CEOs of leading AI companies have grown increasingly confident about rapid progress: * OpenAI's Sam Altman: Shifted from saying in November "the rate of progress continues" to declaring in January "we are now confident we know how to build AGI" * Anthropic's Dario Amodei: Stated in January "I'm more confident than I've ever been that we're close to powerful capabilities... in the next 2-3 years" * Google DeepMind's Demis Hassabis: Changed from "as soon as 10 years" in autumn to "probably three to five years away" by January. What explains the shift? Is it just hype? Or could we really have Artificial General Intelligence (AGI)[1] by 2028? In this article, I look at what's driven recent progress, estimate how far those drivers can continue, and explain why they're likely to continue for at least four more years. In particular, while in 2024 progress in LLM chatbots seemed to slow, a new approach started to work: teaching the models to reason using reinforcement learning. In just a year, this let them surpass human PhDs at answering difficult scientific reasoning questions, and achieve expert-level performance on one-hour coding tasks. We don't know how capable AGI will become, but extrapolating the recent rate of progress suggests that, by 2028, we could reach AI models with beyond-human reasoning abilities, expert-level knowledge in every domain, and that can autonomously complete multi-week projects, and progress would likely continue from there.  On this set of software engineering & computer use tasks, in 2020 AI was only able to do tasks that would typically take a human expert a couple of seconds. By 2024, that had risen to almost an hour. If the trend continues, by 2028 it'll reach several weeks.  No longer mere chatbots, these 'agent' models might soon satisfy many people's definitions of AGI — roughly, AI systems that match human performance at most knowledge work (see definition in footnote). This means that, while the compa
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
SUMMARY:  ALLFED is launching an emergency appeal on the EA Forum due to a serious funding shortfall. Without new support, ALLFED will be forced to cut half our budget in the coming months, drastically reducing our capacity to help build global food system resilience for catastrophic scenarios like nuclear winter, a severe pandemic, or infrastructure breakdown. ALLFED is seeking $800,000 over the course of 2025 to sustain its team, continue policy-relevant research, and move forward with pilot projects that could save lives in a catastrophe. As funding priorities shift toward AI safety, we believe resilient food solutions remain a highly cost-effective way to protect the future. If you’re able to support or share this appeal, please visit allfed.info/donate. Donate to ALLFED FULL ARTICLE: I (David Denkenberger) am writing alongside two of my team-mates, as ALLFED’s co-founder, to ask for your support. This is the first time in Alliance to Feed the Earth in Disaster’s (ALLFED’s) 8 year existence that we have reached out on the EA Forum with a direct funding appeal outside of Marginal Funding Week/our annual updates. I am doing so because ALLFED’s funding situation is serious, and because so much of ALLFED’s progress to date has been made possible through the support, feedback, and collaboration of the EA community.  Read our funding appeal At ALLFED, we are deeply grateful to all our supporters, including the Survival and Flourishing Fund, which has provided the majority of our funding for years. At the end of 2024, we learned we would be receiving far less support than expected due to a shift in SFF’s strategic priorities toward AI safety. Without additional funding, ALLFED will need to shrink. I believe the marginal cost effectiveness for improving the future and saving lives of resilience is competitive with AI Safety, even if timelines are short, because of potential AI-induced catastrophes. That is why we are asking people to donate to this emergency appeal