“Expected Value Altruism” might be a less catchy name than Effective Altruism, but it would be a more precise and less antagonizing name for a movement whose most distinguishing characteristic is not effectiveness broadly, but an expected-value-calculating approach to making the world better.

Most people want to be effective at achieving their goals, even if these are to help others. So, it doesn’t seem a self-proclaimed interest in effectiveness is what divides EAs from altruistic non-EAs. Part of the divide could be over how much emphasis to place on effectiveness, but there are altruists who are very interested in effectiveness and impact but do not identify as EAs. The most apparent general disagreement between them and EAs would be, I think, over the methods for determining what altruistic actions to take. EAs and EA orgs claim to use expected value methodology occasionally or often to determine the course of their altruism, while non-EAs and non-EA orgs either do not use these at all, or put much less emphasis on them. If this is what primarily distinguishes EAs from non-EA altruists, highlighting this by having it in the name of the movement could help in a few ways.

Effective Altruists attempt to be effective in their pursuit of doing good, so EA is not a total misnomer, but EAs have this specific expected-value-centric theory of effectiveness, and it might not be the only defensible one. Even if it were, plenty of people think there are other potentially effective approaches to altruism, and the name “effective altruism” begs the question against them by implicitly asserting what needs to be argued for: that expected value methodology is the most effective or only possibly effective approach to altruism.

“Expected Value Altruism” doesn’t do this. It directly points to the group’s methodology without implicitly asserting that it is the best or only effective way to be altruistic. An Expected Value Altruist certainly could believe that expected value methodology is the only possibly effective approach to doing good, but the name itself doesn’t imply anything like that. And, because “Expected Value Altruism” immediately flags this potential source of disagreement between EVAs and their detractors, the self-identified Expected Value Altruists automatically put themselves in the position of having to defend the advantages of expected value approaches to altruism. Along with inspiring more reflection about—and a more honed ability to articulate—the advantages and disadvantages of applying expected value methodology to our effects on the world, this could also inspire more altruistic non-EVAs to think about and explain why they don’t see the need for expected value methodology.

In contrast, the name “effective altruism” potentially obscures the key methodology in dispute by burrowing it under the broader concept of “effectiveness,” which could lead to unnecessary confusion and even hostility because pretty much everyone endorses some form of effectiveness in their pursuit of the good, and it can be offensive to think your opponent is calling you a champion of ineffectiveness.

Another advantage “Expected Value Altruism” has over “Effective Altruism” is that it is more accurate—not just for being more precise, but because all EAs should (and plenty do) recognize that even if it were true that expected value methodology was the best tool we have for trying to be effective, we can’t be sure it actually will lead to the most effective altruism. Effectiveness can be achieved without consciously pursuing it, and a conscious pursuit of effectiveness can have worse results than acting more intuitively. It could turn out that by some unforeseeable chain of events, donating to the Make-a-Wish Foundation would have led to a better world than donating to the Against Malaria Foundation did, even though no plausible expected value calculation would ever suggest this. Perhaps expected value methodology is the best strategy we currently know of for trying to be effective, but this doesn’t mean those who employ it will necessarily be the most effective and that those who don’t will necessarily be the least effective.

Above-average effectiveness can be achieved accidentally; employing expected value methodology, however, cannot. “Effective Altruism” could be a misnomer if the movement backfires and destroys the world, or even if it improves the world less effectively than other approaches. It’s hard to see how “Expected Value Altruism” could ever be a misnomer unless EAs exaggerate how much they rely on expected value methodology or unless the majority of EAs who indeed use it later shift away from it. In short, the effectiveness of Effective Altruism is debatable. Much less debatable is that EAs and EA orgs (at least purport to) use expected value methodology to guide their altruistic actions.

Are there any possible downsides to rebranding Effective Altruism as Expected Value Altruism? I can think of a few. 

One is that it might boost commitment to expected value methodology despite any possible pitfalls that methodology might have, and it could also encourage performative expected value calculations that serve no purpose other than demonstrating one’s rightful place in Expected Value Altruism. However, I suspect there’s already a performative aspect to some of the expected value appeals in effective altruism. Plus, putting “Expected Value” in the name of the movement might result in a more serious and re-occurring debate over how to determine the expected value of different possible actions in an increasingly chaotic world of black swans, unknown unknowns, and generally just too many potentially relevant factors to feasibly cram into in such calculations. The renaming could lead to more humility about the reliability of applying expected value methodology to altruism rather than inflating its importance.

A second potential problem is that everyone has some concept of what effective means, but that’s not true of expected value, so the concept of “Expected Value Altruism” would tend to demand more up-front explanation than “Effective Altruism” does. But this is another advantage in disguise. The familiarity of “effective” is part of the problem with “Effective Altruism,” because it can promote a false sense of mutual understanding over what Effective Altruism entails and what it implies about non-EA approaches to altruism, which can lead to confusion and conflict.

The most serious problem I’ve thought of is the practical issue of all the paperwork and of convincing everyone who is used to calling it "Effective Altruism" to instead call it "Expected Value Altruism." I agree it’s a challenge. I still call CEEALAR “The EA Hotel.” My suggestion is for people who prefer “Expected Value Altruism” to call it that informally. Maybe it will eventually make sense to do an official re-naming.