Many atheists seem to come to hold to some sort of version of utilitarianism (an understanding of morality where 'good' is defined as acting benevolently toward others with a goal of maximizing happiness, freedom, well-being etc). For many utilitarians the following question arises: What is the most good that I can do?
In other words, if I want to be "good" and live my life in a way that maximizes the good I do, and minimizes the evil, then how, logically, should I go about that? This seems to be a question that atheist millennials are increasingly asking. As the new atheistic generation grows up without the aid of a lifetime of church sermons to tell them what is right and wrong, they are looking for an understanding of how they should live their lives based on their own, utilitarian, morality. And the answer is not obvious. We live in a complex society and there are many different ways of trying to help others, 1000s of different charities that try to do so, so people can easily become overwhelmed and paralyzed by having too many choices and they have no idea of how to maximize the good that they do.
Peter Singer is the world's most prominent utilitarian moral philosopher (he first became known for pioneering the animal rights movement in the 70s with his book Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for our Treatment of Animals), and he and a group of his students created the Effective Altruism movement to examine this question:
Peter Singer has himself written a book about it, The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically (2015), which I am currently reading and enjoying. It builds on one of Singer's arguments in the 70s that modern Western society has a moral obligation to give much greater amounts of aid to the 3rd world than it currently does.
One of the major observations that effective altruists tend to make is: Money goes a lot further in the third world. It can cost $30,000 to train a guide dog to help one blind person here, while a $20 cataract surgery can restore sight to a blind person in a country that currently lacks such medicine. Likewise poor people in the Western world are pretty well-off by the standards of the 3rd world, and it takes an additional $100 or so a week to make much difference to the fortunes of a poor family here, while World Vision famously runs its $1 a day drive to provide a 3rd world child with what is needed for that cost.
So a possible answer that the effective altruism movement has identified to the question of how to do the most good, is the slightly counter-intuitive:
Earn as much money as you can in your job and career, spend as little on yourself as you reasonably can without sacrificing your own ability to earn more money or sacrificing your own happiness and motivation to earn and to give, and give as much as you possibly can to the most effective 3rd world charities, ideally 50%+ of your income if you can.
There are many other possible ways of doing the "most good" that the effective altruism movement has explored and analyzed, but the above seems to rank pretty highly in general, and will be the most applicable method of doing the most good for most of the people in the Western world. The Effective Altruism movement has also spawned a number of organisations that are dedicated to evaluating the effectiveness of different charities, so that people can try to get the "most bang for their buck" in terms of the goods being achieved for the money donated.
While nothing about the Effective Altruism movement prohibits Christians from participating, the moral impetus for this movement has come from atheists living out the utilitarian moral principles they hold. Maximizing people's earthly well-being is not something that historically Christians have tended to be all that interested in (Christians have various celebrated monks who lived in deserts, or up poles, or groups who practiced self-flagellation, or said that nothing much in this world matters in light of the world to come). While certainly some Christian groups such as the Salvation Army and World Vision have focused on earthly charity much more than average, most Christian groups have prioritized saving souls far above any earthly concerns. Charity donations in the US, one of the most openly Christian nations in the Western world, tend to go primarily to local churches (to pay pastors, building upkeep, and support any missionaries or local programs), to educational institutions (e.g. university alumni donations), and to support the Arts (theaters, museums, galleries, etc), and the US government's foreign aid budget is well below the OECD average at a mere 0.2% of national income.
The Effective Altruism movement seems to be quite a stark generation difference in people's approach to charitable giving, and seems to demonstrate a significant difference between the consequences of atheism and Christianity when it comes to charity that focuses on this-world needs in the here-and-now. Jesus' quote of "If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor" sounds much more like something a modern atheist who is an effective altruist might say than it sounds like something a modern evangelical Christian would say.
In other words, if I want to be "good" and live my life in a way that maximizes the good I do, and minimizes the evil, then how, logically, should I go about that? This seems to be a question that atheist millennials are increasingly asking. As the new atheistic generation grows up without the aid of a lifetime of church sermons to tell them what is right and wrong, they are looking for an understanding of how they should live their lives based on their own, utilitarian, morality. And the answer is not obvious. We live in a complex society and there are many different ways of trying to help others, 1000s of different charities that try to do so, so people can easily become overwhelmed and paralyzed by having too many choices and they have no idea of how to maximize the good that they do.
Peter Singer is the world's most prominent utilitarian moral philosopher (he first became known for pioneering the animal rights movement in the 70s with his book Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for our Treatment of Animals), and he and a group of his students created the Effective Altruism movement to examine this question:
Effective altruism is a philosophy and social movement that applies evidence and reason to determining the most effective ways to improve the world. Effective altruism encourages individuals to consider all causes and actions and to act in the way that brings about the greatest positive impact, based upon their values...
While a substantial proportion of effective altruists have focused on the nonprofit sector, the philosophy of effective altruism applies more broadly to prioritizing the scientific projects, companies, and policy initiatives which can be estimated to save and improve the most lives
While a substantial proportion of effective altruists have focused on the nonprofit sector, the philosophy of effective altruism applies more broadly to prioritizing the scientific projects, companies, and policy initiatives which can be estimated to save and improve the most lives
Peter Singer has himself written a book about it, The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically (2015), which I am currently reading and enjoying. It builds on one of Singer's arguments in the 70s that modern Western society has a moral obligation to give much greater amounts of aid to the 3rd world than it currently does.
One of the major observations that effective altruists tend to make is: Money goes a lot further in the third world. It can cost $30,000 to train a guide dog to help one blind person here, while a $20 cataract surgery can restore sight to a blind person in a country that currently lacks such medicine. Likewise poor people in the Western world are pretty well-off by the standards of the 3rd world, and it takes an additional $100 or so a week to make much difference to the fortunes of a poor family here, while World Vision famously runs its $1 a day drive to provide a 3rd world child with what is needed for that cost.
So a possible answer that the effective altruism movement has identified to the question of how to do the most good, is the slightly counter-intuitive:
Earn as much money as you can in your job and career, spend as little on yourself as you reasonably can without sacrificing your own ability to earn more money or sacrificing your own happiness and motivation to earn and to give, and give as much as you possibly can to the most effective 3rd world charities, ideally 50%+ of your income if you can.
There are many other possible ways of doing the "most good" that the effective altruism movement has explored and analyzed, but the above seems to rank pretty highly in general, and will be the most applicable method of doing the most good for most of the people in the Western world. The Effective Altruism movement has also spawned a number of organisations that are dedicated to evaluating the effectiveness of different charities, so that people can try to get the "most bang for their buck" in terms of the goods being achieved for the money donated.
While nothing about the Effective Altruism movement prohibits Christians from participating, the moral impetus for this movement has come from atheists living out the utilitarian moral principles they hold. Maximizing people's earthly well-being is not something that historically Christians have tended to be all that interested in (Christians have various celebrated monks who lived in deserts, or up poles, or groups who practiced self-flagellation, or said that nothing much in this world matters in light of the world to come). While certainly some Christian groups such as the Salvation Army and World Vision have focused on earthly charity much more than average, most Christian groups have prioritized saving souls far above any earthly concerns. Charity donations in the US, one of the most openly Christian nations in the Western world, tend to go primarily to local churches (to pay pastors, building upkeep, and support any missionaries or local programs), to educational institutions (e.g. university alumni donations), and to support the Arts (theaters, museums, galleries, etc), and the US government's foreign aid budget is well below the OECD average at a mere 0.2% of national income.
The Effective Altruism movement seems to be quite a stark generation difference in people's approach to charitable giving, and seems to demonstrate a significant difference between the consequences of atheism and Christianity when it comes to charity that focuses on this-world needs in the here-and-now. Jesus' quote of "If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor" sounds much more like something a modern atheist who is an effective altruist might say than it sounds like something a modern evangelical Christian would say.
Comment