{"id":304,"date":"2016-10-31T23:18:14","date_gmt":"2016-10-31T23:18:14","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/devpolicy.org\/aidprofiles\/?p=304"},"modified":"2016-10-31T23:18:14","modified_gmt":"2016-10-31T23:18:14","slug":"peter-singers-effective-altruism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/devpolicy.org\/aidprofiles\/2016\/10\/31\/peter-singers-effective-altruism\/","title":{"rendered":"Peter Singer\u2019s effective altruism"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Stephen Howes<\/em><\/p>\n

Earlier this year, Peter Singer<\/strong> was in Melbourne to address the 2016 Australian Effective Altruism Conference. I was also there to speak at the same conference, to find out more\u00a0about this new and growing movement, and to talk to Peter Singer, its founder.<\/p>\n

Our\u00a0story starts in 1970.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

\n

The essay<\/strong><\/h1>\n
\"A
A refugee mother and child from East Bengal during the Bangladesh war, in 1971. Photo: Sunil Janah<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

In 1970, what was then East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) was hit by a cyclone that killed half a million people. In 1971, war broke out between East and West Pakistan, leading to Bangladesh\u2019s independence, and displacing nearly ten million refugees. The West was shocked and moved. George Harrison and Ravi Shankar organised The Concert for Bangladesh, the first of the big benefit concerts. Peter Singer, then a young philosophy lecturer at Oxford University, wrote an essay \u201cFamine, Affluence and Morality<\/a>\u201d, which was published in 1972 in the academic journal Philosophy and Public Affairs.<\/em><\/p>\n

Singer\u2019s argument consisted of two basic propositions.<\/p>\n

The first is the duty to prevent suffering. Singer expressed the more moderate version of this as a requirement to \u201cprevent bad occurrences unless, to do so, we have to sacrifice something morally significant.\u201d<\/p>\n

The second is the moral irrelevance of distance.\u00a0\u201cIt makes no difference whether the person I can help is a neighbour’s child ten yards away from me or a\u00a0Bengali\u00a0whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away.\u201d<\/p>\n

It was a compelling one-two. To drive his point home, Singer used the parable of a child drowning in a shallow pool. If we saw her, we would certainly pull her out, and hang the inconvenience of getting our clothes muddy. Equally obviously, we who can afford it should donate some of our income to help the refugees of Bangladesh, and hang the inconvenience of the monetary loss involved.<\/p>\n

The career<\/strong><\/h1>\n

\"\"\u201cFamine, Affluence and Morality\u201d was Peter Singer\u2019s first foray into the field he was to make his own: practical ethics; the application of ethics\u2013in his case utilitarian ethics\u2013to public policy problems. However, it was a stepping stone rather than a launching pad. Singer soon became famous in relation to quite a different issue. In 1975, he wrote Animal Liberation<\/em>, which sold half a million copies, and provided the philosophical foundations for the animal liberation movement. Never one to preach and not to practice, Singer, who by this time had returned to Melbourne, the city of his upbringing, in 1980 co-founded Animals Australia<\/a>, the highly influential lobbying group.<\/p>\n

\"practical_ethics_1980_edition\"His work on the rights of animals made Singer influential. What made him famous, and infamous in some circles, was his work on euthanasia, and his justification of infanticide under certain circumstances. In 1977, he published Practical Ethics<\/em>, which set out his views on these contentious issues. They were to remain an enduring interest. In 1980, Singer established the Centre for Human Bioethics<\/a> at Monash University. There over the next twenty years he laid the foundations for the academic field of bioethics, examining questions of life and death, from genetic engineering to in vitro<\/em> fertilisation. Singer stayed at Monash until his appointment as the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton in 1999.<\/p>\n

By then, Singer was a philosopher with rockstar status, often referred to as the world\u2019s most famous. In 2005, he was named by Time <\/em>magazine as one of the world\u2019s 100 most influential people. The citation noted his work on animal rights and bioethics; nothing on global poverty, but Singer used the platform his status gave him to prosecute his case.<\/p>\n

His Princeton appointment was particularly controversial\u2013on account of his views around infanticide\u2013and gave rise to an invitation from The New York Times <\/em>to contribute an op-ed. Singer wrote an article that repeated the arguments of his 1972 article. The newspaper called it the \u201cSinger solution to global poverty<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n

\"the_life_you_can_save-large\"A decade later, in 2009, Singer wrote his first book on the subject, The Life You Can Save<\/em>. It followed the 1972 arguments, but with two important enhancements. First, it advocated for giving not only as a moral requirement, but as an aid to happiness. Singer found evidence in the psychological literature for the biblical precept that in giving we receive. Or, as he put it (on p.184), \u201ctaking part in a collective effort to help the world\u2019s poorest people would give your life greater meaning and fulfilment.\u201d<\/p>\n

Second, keen to promote broader engagement, Singer put forward some more detailed guidelines for giving: a sliding scale, starting at 1% of income, reaching\u00a05% at $US 105,000, and continuing to rise. Individuals could and should do more, Singer argued, but he wanted to influence social expectations about what we should give, and for that he needed more moderate benchmarks. Also to encourage action, the book included a seven-point personal action plan, and reference to a website<\/a> at which readers could pledge to give the amount Singer\u2019s scale recommended.<\/p>\n

In hindsight, that was the start of the effective altruism movement. Singer went on found The Life You Can Save<\/a> as a fund-raising and educational organisation. To date, 19,000 people have taken the Singer pledge. And more change was afoot.<\/p>\n[aesop_video align=”center” src=”youtube” id=”Diuv3XZQXyc” caption=”Peter Singer’s 2013 TED Talk on effective altruism” disable_for_mobile=”off” loop=”off” autoplay=”off” controls=”off” viewstart=”off” viewend=”off”]\n

The movement<\/strong><\/h1>\n

Oxford is a centre of the effective altruism movement, with a number of related groups now linked through the Centre for Effective Altruism<\/a>. The organisation Giving What We Can<\/a> was established there in 2009. Members pledge to give 10% of their income to development NGOs they judge to be particularly effective. It has 2,000 members who have donated $16 million.<\/p>\n

80,000 Hours<\/a> is another Oxford group. It gives career advice to aspiring altruists. An antidote to the usual advice bestowed upon Millennials to follow their dreams and passions, 80,000 Hours calls on young people to also think about how much they can earn, and therefore give, during their expected working career.<\/p>\n

There are similar groups, mainly of young people, across continental Europe, as well as in Australia, the US and Canada, and emerging in Singapore and Hong Kong. Most, though not all, are focused on global poverty; animal rights and global risks also get a look in.<\/p>\n

The motto of the effective altruism movement is perhaps best summed up by\u00a0Giving What We Can\u2019s slogan: \u201cGive more; give more effectively.\u201d Singer\u2019s influence in relation to the first of these two imperatives is obvious: it is the constant theme of his writing on the subject ever since 1972.<\/p>\n[aesop_video align=”center” src=”youtube” id=”vemZpp3gLAc” caption=”Peter Singer participates in a panel at the 2016 Effective Altruism Conference” disable_for_mobile=”on” loop=”off” autoplay=”off” controls=”off” viewstart=”off” viewend=”off”]\n

Singer\u2019s role in relation to the imperative to \u201cgive more effectively\u201d is less obvious. The effective altruism movement tends to recommend small NGOs with proven methodologies \u2013 a focus that some see<\/a> as a weakness. The Against Malaria Foundation<\/a>, which distributes anti-malarial bednets, is a perennial effective altruism favourite. The big NGOs don\u2019t figure: their effectiveness is judged too uncertain.<\/p>\n

Except by Singer, who, although he insists that the charitable dollar gets a much higher return overseas, takes a more catholic view of development effectiveness. He is a life-long supporter of Oxfam, and serves on the Leadership Council of Oxfam US. Even though its impact is difficult to measure, Singer values Oxfam\u2019s advocacy and its support for civil society in developing countries.<\/p>\n

\"the-most-good-you-can-do\"While the line of sight from Singer to the movement he has spawned is not always direct, he is clearly the movement\u2019s mentor and patron. It is a role he embraces. Singer\u2019s \u00a02013 TED talk<\/a> (embedded above) is a ready reference, as is his most recent book, The Most Good You Can Do<\/em>, published in 2015. There\u2019s even a Singer effective altruism MOOC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The effective altruism movement responds not only to Singer\u2019s advocacy for international giving, but also to his broader call to reinstate, as he put it in 1995, \u201cthe idea of living an ethical life as a realistic and viable alternative to the present dominance of materialist self-interest.\u201d The conflict between ethics and self-interest needs to be overcome, Singer wrote, \u201cnot by abstract reasoning alone\u201d but by \u201cshowing that it works.\u201d<\/p>\n\n[aesop_audio title=”Peter Singer’s address to the 2013 Tasmanian Writers Festival: our greatest moral challenges” src=”http:\/\/mpegmedia.abc.net.au\/rn\/podcast\/2014\/01\/bof_20140116.mp3″ loop=”off” viewstart=”off” viewend=”off” hidden=”off”]\n

\"singer1\"The man<\/h1>\n

When Singer wrote his Bangladesh article, he was 26. When I got to interview him in July 2016, he was 70. There are very few people who can claim to be the intellectual father of one movement, let alone two or three. But why had it taken so long \u2013 almost 40 years \u2013 for there to be a public response to his original essay?<\/p>\n

Singer says he is not completely sure of the answer, but that there are various factors at play.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think the internet has played quite a role, because people might have been quite isolated. They might have thought \u2018We ought to spend a large part of our lives doing the most good we can or helping people who are in extreme poverty.\u2019 But they might have been the only person they knew who thought like that. They might have just concluded \u2018Well, I\u2019m a bit odd.\u2019 But the internet enables people like that to connect.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

He also cites the growing culture of philanthropy among entrepreneurs.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe fact that there are a number of people who made very large amounts of money at a very early age in life and decided to use that money to do a lot of good is helping to catalyse interest in the issue. Bill Gates is the obvious example, but there are now a lot of others.\u201d <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Was he optimistic, because of the movement now afoot, or pessimistic that society is ever more consumerist? Globally, private giving for development seems stagnant<\/a>, but Singer is upbeat.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m encouraged. Because this movement is a relatively new one, maybe its influence is not yet reflected in the total amounts being given. But it does seem to be growing, and I see a lot of encouraging signs.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cOn a recent trip to Europe, I spoke at something called Founders Pledge<\/a>, which is a group for founders of start-ups. It\u2019s encouraging them to pledge to give a minimum of 2% of the money they get if they cash out their start-up. Within a year or so, founders have pledged $120 million to charities. Already, five or six million dollars have been given. That\u2019s a great group of people who are very entrepreneurial, and mostly fairly young. I\u2019m hoping that they\u2019re trendsetters for the way other people will react.”<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What about government aid, which dwarves its non-government cousin, Bill Gates and the like notwithstanding? Singer supports more government aid, but admits that his evidence base for it is not \u201coverwhelmingly strong\u201d. He is more comfortable supporting\u2013and asking others to support\u2013specific organisations he is confident deliver effective aid.<\/p>\n

And what about the man himself? Was he persuaded to give by his philosophy or by other influences?<\/p>\n

\u201cCertainly not by religious beliefs,\u201d Singer says.<\/p>\n

\u201cI didn\u2019t have religious beliefs. By parental influences, to some extent. My father was a small businessman here in Melbourne. He certainly had ethical standards for how he would conduct his business, and that influenced me.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cI would also attribute a lot to the influences that I had from being a student in the 1960s and being active against the Vietnam War and against conscription. That had an influence, but then I saw these other issues that were comparatively neglected compared to the amount of attention given to the Vietnam War. They seemed important as well.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Thinking through the demands of morality has been Singer\u2019s life work. Interestingly, his practical and now life-long commitments to vegetarianism and to personal giving both started at around the same time.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen I started thinking about animals and ethics, I was a graduate student at Oxford. I was challenged to think: if I\u2019m continuing to eat meat, am I living ethically? I decided no, I wasn\u2019t. But then also, I thought back then\u2014and this was a thought I had before I ever started thinking about animals\u2014if I\u2019m not doing anything to help people in extreme poverty, when I\u2019ve got more than enough, I\u2019m not living ethically.\u00a0So, I went along to Oxfam\u2019s offices, in Oxford. I got some information from them and \u2026 from then on I started giving to Oxfam.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The rest, one might say, is history.<\/p>\n

\"Peter
Peter Singer, philosopher and ethicist, speaking at TED2013 in California.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The impact<\/strong><\/h1>\n

Singer\u2019s 1971 article might not have had much impact at the time it was published, but it certainly has in the decades since. There is now a significant literature on the moral implications of global poverty. Some remain sceptical, especially of the demanding nature of Singer\u2019s arguments. Bernard Williams offers a famous critique<\/a> of utilitarianism along these lines, though whether their appearance of being too demanding is a critique of Singer\u2019s arguments or of ourselves remains unclear. If\u00a0 it is the former, then, as Singer has repeatedly noted, even a less demanding moral framework\u2013giving our distant obligations at least some weight\u2013would lead to the same conclusion in support of giving to international aid agencies.<\/p>\n

Singer often refers to the \u201cmorally decent life\u201d. No one has done more to broaden our definition of moral decency: \u00a0to make it \u201cunacceptable to be comfortably off and do nothing for the world’s poor\u201d, and to overcome our \u201cindifference to the indefinite continuation of dire poverty and avoidable poverty-related deaths.\u201d And now there are thousands of young people mobilised to live out the principles of giving more and giving more effectively, which makes these ideas\u00a0seem less far-fetched and more attractive.<\/p>\n

Peter Singer\u2019s contribution to the struggle against global poverty has already been significant. And it looks set to grow.<\/p>\n\n

Notes: The 1995 quote (in the last paragraph in the section headed \u2018The movement\u2019) is on p. 235 of How are we to live?<\/u> published in that year by Prometheus Books. The two quotes in the penultimate paragraph are, respectively, from <\/em>this<\/em><\/a> 2009 Guardian interview and from p. 212 of Singer\u2019s One world: the ethics of globalization<\/u><\/em>, Yale University Press, 2004.<\/em><\/p>\n

\"image_pdf\"PDF<\/span><\/a>\"image_print\"Print<\/span><\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Stephen Howes Earlier this year, Peter Singer was in Melbourne to address the 2016 Australian Effective Altruism Conference. I was also there to speak…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":307,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-304","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-aid-profiles-2016","post-grid"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/devpolicy.org\/aidprofiles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/8518955697_cdba9bf711_o.jpg?fit=1920%2C1278&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p7hgvn-4U","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/devpolicy.org\/aidprofiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/304","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/devpolicy.org\/aidprofiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/devpolicy.org\/aidprofiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/devpolicy.org\/aidprofiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/devpolicy.org\/aidprofiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=304"}],"version-history":[{"count":23,"href":"https:\/\/devpolicy.org\/aidprofiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/304\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":338,"href":"https:\/\/devpolicy.org\/aidprofiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/304\/revisions\/338"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/devpolicy.org\/aidprofiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/307"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/devpolicy.org\/aidprofiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=304"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/devpolicy.org\/aidprofiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=304"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/devpolicy.org\/aidprofiles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=304"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}