Introduction
In today’s social and economic climate there is no shortage of people claiming that everything is broken and that we need a systemic change to bring about stability. Public discourse revolves frequently around the need for more just income distribution, greater female/male equality, defense of human rights, defense of democracy... the list goes on. Most people focus on identifying the problem. In my framing, these people are focusing on the What – what is the problem. EA has answered this question with a focus on Global Health, Animal Welfare, and AI Safety, etc. (To our credit, EA is also searching for data to challenge current assumptions and identify new causes worth supporting, though that focus searches for more ‘What’s’.)
Public discourse focuses less on the How – how can we address the problem - though when you look for it you can find experts discussing the pros and cons of greater progressive taxes, gender quotas at universities and in the boardroom, international criminal court system, and freedom of speech in an age of social media. EA again has fostered an amazing community of intelligent and well researched individuals to debate on the best How to each of the What's.
While there is no silver bullet solution to address the world’s woes, I have been relieved to realize that there is no shortage of ideas to solve the world’s most pressing concerns. People much more informed and experienced than me are engaged in innovative solutions to address the different challenges identified throughout the EA movement. I find this energy exciting and infectious.
However, the issue that has come to the fore in my mind is that we as a community don’t focus enough on the “Why”. Why should we strive to respond to these issues? I don’t mean Why strive to respond to AI versus strive for animal rights. I mean why Strive for any of it?
This is the question that all non-EAs ask themselves when they first hear about the concept and its the answer to this question that will be the key to unlocking the growth of this movement.
Two answers to Why?
There are two fundamental answers which can respond to the question of ‘Why’:
- Because the outcome is better for me.
- Because the outcome is better for the world.
The first is the easier and more direct response, one that drives the majority of people’s conscious decision making. It’s how we decide what to eat, where to shop, where to work, and how to dress. Arguing that the first response is the default process for most humans may seem cynical, though it is important to remind ourselves that this answer is the foundation of the world’s economic systems, dating back to Adam Smith’s up to today’s Trumpian America First slogan.
I am writing this post as a way of promoting the importance of the second fundamental answer to the question of Why. This groundbreaking idea that people should act in pursuit of the best outcome for others is the wellspring of the revolution that EA is organizing. Using as the foundation for ‘Why’ a decision should be made, the moral goodness of the outcome, making decisions because ‘they are the right thing to do,’ this is immensely important.
Why should men fight for stronger female rights? Not because they have women in their family, not because they may have daughters in the future. Not because it will lead to a more stable society that the men will benefit from? No. They should fight because it is the right thing to do.
Why should rich nations provide finance to developing nations as they combat climate change? Not because it creates a more stable globalized trading economy. Not because they will get a return on their investment. Not because financial loans provide them with greater neo-colonial leverage. Not because they themselves have coastlines in flood risk and real estate exposed to forest fire. Rich nations should act to assist developing nations because it is the right thing to do.
If we fail to realize that the Why is the most important question of our time then we will fail to step up to the global inflection point that we are at today. We require more than a nexus of expert EA’s pushing niche research topics and promoting effective charitable giving. We need a global movement of selflessness that demands pro-social decisions at the scale of the world economy. This is the demand of the day. We must learn to embrace self-sacrifice at the societal level (particularly among the well-off in developed countries).
If we don’t resoundingly cement a broader ethical dimension to our decision making then we will surpass 2.5 degrees Celsius, we will lose the fight to save critical species from extinction, we will increase food shortages (in the near term), refugee numbers will rise as will incidence of premature deaths (reversing some of the amazing public health progress we’ve made in the half century).
What comes after the why?
If we are successful in promoting the second fundamental why, we will see a surge of individuals driven to find effective outlets for creating positive change. Along with the increased number will come many individuals who disagree with the existing EA framework, potentially rejecting AI as an existential risk and pushing for a greater focus on a different diversity of topics. This would be great.
Diversity of ideas and opportunities for debate organized around a shared intention to do good would lead to more momentum for EA. I don’t know what the best thing to do is, and I am not promoting a specific course of action once a person has adopted the second ‘why’. I only want more people to adopt a way of living consistent with a decision-making-structure founded on doing things for the betterment of others. This for me is the core of EA.
Due, I believe, to limited resources and insufficient data, EA promotes interventions, recommends donations, and facilitates careers specific to a very narrow set of issues. The issues focused on are very important, potentially the most important, but they are not the only important ones. There are many issues that are overlooked or deprioritized for lack of resource. If we had more people, with more money and more time, the EA movement could do more good. To unlock that extra force, we need to get more people to adopt our answer to the question to “Why” act.
Who am I?
For my whole life, I have known that I am in a greatly fortunate position. I was born as a white male in an affluent area of USA to caring parents who prioritized my education and supported me to pursue my passions. I grew up surrounded by people as fortunate as me but I knew that most people were not in the same situation, not even one town over much less in developing countries across the world.
But while I was surrounded by peers, I never really saw the same moral confusion that I faced when considering my (family’s) wealth. Why did I have it? How could I justify my position and comfort?
Throughout my 20s, I struggled with a feeling of guilt - of never doing enough, of not measuring up to the expectation that I’d set for myself to make good on the world’s investment in me. However, through work and through some interaction with the EA philosophy I have replaced the sense of guilt with a sense of purpose. I have been gifted a world class education, economic safety nets that allow me to take career risks, and a loving and supportive family. Now it is my purpose to find an outlet to those advantages to better the lives of others. “How to do that?” is the question I ask myself daily and EA has helped me find methods to be more effective.
And while I still do not have a definitive answer, my interaction with EA has helped me find a starting point: intention matters most. The first step to helping others is the realization and the cementation of that intention as your north star. “Know your Why”.
The world is complex and volatile, and there are many debating theories on what works and what doesn’t. It would be impossible to come up with the supreme calculation to identify a singular best way to make the world better. If that is what the EA community is seeking then I think we are off the mark. That question is far too grand and the answer will be different for different individuals with different skills located in different locations with different opportunities available to them. As our community grows, our methods will be required to vary - however our why should be shared - “help others.”
Once I’d recognized my ‘Why,’ EA helped me further to define 5 clear truths:
Five self-evident truths:
1. It is better to help more people rather than fewer
2. It is better to help people in more need rather than those who are more comfortable
3. It is better to help people to a greater extent than have a smaller impact
4. It is better to help people today than tomorrow
5. It is better to help people who wouldn’t receive help from others were you not there
With those in mind, it is not enough to help abstractly. Being helpful is not the objective. Striving to be as helpful as I can is the goal. And to do that I need to be strategic, informed, diligent and consistent and the EA community has been designed in a way to respond to those needs. Intelligent crowd-sourced feedback on strategy, data rich research to inform best practices, community accountability to enhance diligence and consistency.
This is great for making those who want to help more effective, but it misses out on what I believe is the biggest opportunity our community has to scale its impact, and that is growing the community through awakening others to the second fundamental answer to the question why.
Where to go from here?
I recognize that the initial proponents of EA made a great effort in socializing the movement and did a fantastic job of articulating the core tenets of the moral obligation - it was through Peter Singer and William MacAskill that I came to the movement. However, since joining the movement I’ve found very little material on effective ways of convincing others to join and precious little written on the comparative efficacy of human development through the selfish invisible hand versus intentional interventions of human altruism.
I don’t believe that EA will be able to step up to the global challenges we face as a society as a super-minority community of well-meaning and hyper-effective philanthropists. We need to reach a scale of popularity where the universal moral philosophies that sit behind EA are influencing national politics, transnational trade policies, and international climate conferences.
To do this, we need to put more energy into proselytizing the EA moral framework among a much broader audience. We need to do research into effective ways to awaken others to the moral necessity of acting on behalf of others and have answers to questions about why their personal self-sacrifice today is required to help others.
I would love to see the global priorities research center investigate the promotion of moral awakening as one of the most critical causes our community can pursue. By bringing more people in, we scale the amount of effort, finance and new ideas that our movement can leverage.
Am I missing something?
I’d love to be shown that I am wrong and that there is a focus on the promotion of the Why. If anyone here can point me towards materials that demonstrate momentum building on the moral awakening of a broader audience I would love to see it.
"We need to do research into effective ways to awaken others to the moral necessity of acting on behalf of others and have answers to questions"
The first step in a research of this kind is to consider the phenomena of cultural evolution of which the phenomena of moral evolution are a part. One of the errors of the "effective altruism movement" is to forget that moral-structural changes are much more effective than the mere accumulation of means from current cultural-moral structures.
Promoting cultural changes is much more effective than promoting fundraising within the current culture. How are cultural changes promoted? The civilizing process shows us that the most rapid and effective cultural changes, especially from a moral point of view, are activated using religious mechanisms. It is not that effective altruism evolves into a traditional religion, but that, by carrying out unequivocal projects of effective altruism, psychosocial mechanisms are put in place that can behaviorally change moral action with results similar to those of religious conversion... but without any of its drawbacks of irrationality, prejudice and lack of control. In short, it is necessary to do with religion what was done in its time with astrology - which became astronomy - and with alchemy - which became chemistry -. We need to produce materialistic, rational and efficient "communities of saints." The raw material of "effective altruism" is socially active human moral behavior.
And an important point: to achieve this it is not necessary to "transform society", it is enough to change a subculturally organized minority, in the style of the ancient monastic communities.