Incremental versus systemic changeWhile much of the initial focus of effective altruism was on direct strategies such as
Incremental versus systemic change[edit]
While much of the initial focus of effective altruism was on direct strategies such as health interventions and cash transfers, more systematic social, economic, and political reforms have also attracted attention.[116] Philosopher Amia Srinivasan criticized William MacAskill's Doing Good Better for a perceived lack of coverage of global inequality and oppression, while noting that effective altruism is in principle open to whichever means of doing good is most effective, including political advocacy aimed at systemic change.[117]
Arguments have been made that movements focused on systemic or institutional change are compatible with effective altruism.[118][119][120] Philosopher Elizabeth Ashford posits that people are obligated to both donate to effective aid charities and to reform the structures that are responsible for poverty.[121] Open Philanthropy has given grants for progressive Effective society advocacy work in areas such as criminal justice,[65][122][123] economic stabilization,[65] and housing reform,[124][125] despite pegging the success of political reform as being "highly uncertain".[65]
Criticism[edit]
Criticisms of effective altruism have included a culture of elitism, narrow-minded focus on large problems, disregard for more-local needs, and insufficient focus on societal change.
Focusing on the needs of people in far-away countries because these people can be helped more cheaply, some argue, means disregard for local or domain-specific problems.[126] Ross Douhat of The New York Times criticized the movement's "'telescopic philanthropy' aimed at distant populations" and envisioned "effective altruists sitting around in a San Francisco skyscraper calculating how to relieve suffering halfway around the world while the city decays beneath them".[127] In response to a version of Singer's drowning child analogy,[128] philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah argued that (under EA philosophy) the most effective action of a man in an expensive suit, confronted with a drowning child, would not be to save the child and ruin his suit—but rather, sell the suit and donate the proceeds to charity.[129]
Some criticize a lack of diversity in effective altruism's proponents[130][131] and a perceived elitism.[132] Nitasha Tiku of The Washington Post called the movement a "community of roughly 7,000 adherents—largely young, White men connected to elite schools in the United States and Britain".[133] Ian David Moss called the movement "moralistic" in its competitively weighing causes against each other, justified by playing the "moral high ground".[126] Responding to Moss, MacAskill argued that the more pernicious form of elitism was that of donating to art galleries (and like institutions) instead of charity.[134]
