Effective Altruism
PRINCETON – Can humans really be motivated by altruism? My new book, The Most Good You Can Do, discusses the emerging new movement called Effective Altruism, and, in doing interviews about the book, I am surprised by how often that question is asked.
Why should we doubt
that some people act altruistically, at least some of the time? In
evolutionary terms, we can easily understand altruism toward kin and
others who can reciprocate our help. It seems plausible that once our
ability to reason and reflect has developed sufficiently enough to
enable us to understand that strangers can suffer and enjoy life just as
we can, then at least some of us would act altruistically toward
strangers, too.
The polling
organization Gallup asked people in 135 countries whether they had, in
the last month, donated money to a charity, volunteered their time to an
organization, or helped a stranger. Gallup’s results, which form the
basis of the World Giving Index 2014,
indicate that approximately 2.3 billion people, a third of the world’s
population, perform at least one altruistic act per month.
More objective
evidence of altruism buttresses these findings. In many countries, the
supply of blood for medical purposes relies on voluntary, anonymous
donations. Worldwide, more than 11 million people have put their names
on donor registries for bone marrow, signifying their willingness to
donate their marrow to a stranger. A small but growing number of people
have gone further still, donating a kidney to a stranger. There were 177 altruistic donations by living donors in the United States in 2013 and 118 in the United Kingdom in the year to April 2014.
Then there are those
who donate to charity. In the US alone, individuals gave $240 billion to
charity in 2013. Foundations and corporations topped this up to a total
of $335 billion, or about 2% of gross national income.
The US is often said
to be more charitable than other countries; but, in terms of the
proportion of the population donating money, Myanmar, Malta, Ireland,
the UK, Canada, the Netherlands, and Iceland all do better. In Myanmar,
91% of the people surveyed had given money in the past month (the
corresponding figure for the US is 68%), indicating the strong hold of
the Theravada Buddhist tradition of donating to support monks and nuns.
Myanmar also had the highest percentage of people volunteering time
(51%).
The US did, however,
have the highest ranking for “helping a stranger.” That, together with a
high ranking for volunteering time, led it to tie with Myanmar as the
most generous nation in the world.
Admittedly, not all
of this giving is altruistic. New York’s Lincoln Center announced last
month that the billionaire entertainment industry mogul David Geffen has
donated $100 million toward the renovation of its concert facility,
Avery Fisher Hall, on the condition that it is renamed David Geffen
Hall.
That gift seems
motivated more by a desire for fame than a desire to do good. After all,
as Geffen presumably knew, the family of Avery Fisher had to be
compensated with a payment of $15 million in order to agree to the
renaming. In any case, in a world with a billion people living in
extreme poverty, it would not be difficult for an altruist to appreciate
that there are many ways of doing more good than renovating a concert
hall for well-off music lovers.
At the opposite end
of the giving spectrum, psychologists who study giving behavior have
suggested that people who give small sums of money to a large number of
charities may be motivated less by the desire to help others than by the
warm glow they get from making a donation. By contrast, other donors
give larger sums, usually to only a handful of charities chosen on the
basis of some knowledge about what the charity is doing. They want to
have a positive impact on the world. Their gifts may also make their
lives better, but this is not what motivates them.
The Effective
Altruism movement consists of people who give in the latter way,
combining the head and the heart. Their aim is to do the most good they
can with the resources that they are willing to set aside for that
purpose.
Those resources may
include a tenth, a quarter, or even half of their income. Their altruism
may include their time and talents, and influence their choice of
career. To achieve their aims, they use reason and evidence to ensure
that whatever resources they devote to doing good will be as effective
as possible.
Several studies show that people who are generous are typically happier and more satisfied with their lives than those who do not give. And other studies show that giving leads to activity in the reward centers of the brain (the areas of the brain that are also stimulated by tasty food and sex).
But this does not
mean that these donors are not altruistic. Their direct motive is to
help others, and their giving makes them happier only as a consequence
of the fact that it does help others. If we had more such people,
we would have more giving, and that is what we want. To define
“altruism” so narrowly that the term can be applied only when giving is
contrary to a person’s overall interest would miss the point that the
best situation to bring about is one in which promoting the interests of
others harmonizes with promoting one’s own.
Peter Singer is Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne.
No comments:
Post a Comment