Abstract
The purpose of this paper is threefold: to distinguish between effective and ineffective altruism, to introduce an altruistic rating scale, and to present rating scale conditions. The opinion is that general altruism has the risk of being ineffective; for altruism to be effective four requirements have to be met: timing, benefit realization, shared intent and perpetuation. An altruistic rating scale is presented with rating conditions. Problems with altruism are also presented. The discussion collates the concepts with an example. Altruism is an important contributor to humanity and effective altruism should be promoted.
Introduction
The term altruism, coined by Auguste Comte (1798-1857), initially meant “to live for others”, in contrast to the selfishness of individual rights (1). The understanding of the term has expanded but the initial intent remains, examples are,
- A quality opposed to Egoism. Actions tending to do good to others, regardless of self (2).
- Acting to benefit others while disregarding one’s own welfare (3).
- The quality of unselfish concern for the welfare of others (4).
A simple transaction
Altruism has come to mean good intent to others, to serve the common good and be obligated to the common good. Charities abound, and through altruism society’s surplus finds its way to the less fortunate.
A typical example of an altruistic deed is to give money to a beggar. You can see his poorly state, you feel sorry for him, and give him money with the result that you assume you’ve reduced his need and conclude you’ve helped someone else.
Although your action might appear to be a kind deed, it is ineffective in that your pennies do not address his need materially nor changes his condition significantly. Yet you insist on concluding you’ve done a good deed and have acted altruistically.
Whether one gives a penny or a million to charity, it is important to establish if your action was altruistic. Your intention can mean well but if the consequence is not realized then this is not an effective transaction. An altruistic intent is less effective than an altruistic consequence.
The need for effective altruism
Effective altruism is pragmatic and looks at the results of a transaction. Effective altruism is the preferred route to take because:
There is only so much surplus one can afford to donate.
There is a risk of scarce surplus given with good intent, only to find it is unutilized and wasted, so–called ‘pearls before swine’.
The spirit of giving also has its limitations.
Concepts in an altruistic transaction
The following pointers highlight concepts in an altruistic transaction:
- The two main parties to an altruistic transaction are the recipient and the benefactor.
The recipient has a need derived from a symptom or a cause and approaches the benefactor to reduce his need in part or in full.
- The benefactor has surplus. The benefactor has a primary intent in offering this surplus as a means to benefit the recipient and thus reduce his need. The benefactor may have further expectations, such as legitimating his own morality because he has helped someone else, or compliance with metaphysical edicts.
- The recipient approaches the benefactor directly, on a personal level, and asks for assistance; or the recipient approaches a welfare agency for assistance.
- The intent of the benefactor determines if the transaction is altruistic. Note that making payment in return for a service to be rendered makes this a simple contract and is therefore not altruistic. There are variations on this theme, such as where a contract might exist but the benefactor overpays the recipient – e.g. wash my car, here’s $100.
- The surplus that is transferred may be money, food, goods, advice, etc., the utilization of which is a benefit to the recipient.
- The receipt and use of the transferred surplus may address the recipient’s presented need (e.g. hunger, and the money he receives is actually spent on food).
- The result of the transaction is that the recipient’s need (be it a symptom or a cause) has been addressed, be it directly (hungry and he eats) or indirectly (money obtained that may be used later for food).
- Each transaction between a benefactor and recipient contains a physical and cognitive element; this is titled a duality dynamic. The physical side is the surplus offered that addresses the recipient’s need. From a cognitive side the benefactor recognizes the recipient’s need, and acts with intent to reduce the need.
- The spirit of altruism is enhanced when the benefactor is identified and his intent made clear, and where the recipient’s need is understood and his condition addressed directly.
- There is a risk of misrepresentation by both parties.
Contributors to effective altruism
The above concepts introduce the contributors in an altruistic transaction. The following promotes the effectiveness of the transaction:
1. Timing – to establish the timing when the transacted surplus will be utilized and the reduction of the need effected; e.g. money for a meal is spent today, and the food has a short term benefit. Money for an educational course that begins now and bears fruit at the end of the course may be beneficial for the long term. The sooner the surplus can be applied, the sooner the need can be addressed.
2. Benefit realization – to establish that the recipient has applied the surplus and has benefited. This is a critical step as it validates the benefactor’s intent.
3. Shared intent – to establish that both parties understand the intent with which the surplus is given, and the purpose of its use. This includes a commitment from the recipient to honour the shared intent in terms of
· utilization of the surplus (e.g. This money goes to food, not alcohol).
· an obligation by the recipient to the benefactor.
4. Perpetuation – to establish if the presented surplus can perpetuate itself so that the duration of the benefit extends beyond the short term. Ideally, the benefit should perpetuate and address the cause of a problem, not the symptom, as in evident in the Chinese proverb : “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach him to fish, and you’ve fed him for a lifetime.” Perpetuation is the biggest challenge facing altruism.
Rating scale
Assume a group of transactions occurred and one wished to establish which was most altruistic. A rating scale would be applied to the transactions equally. The following rating scale is presented:
Stars
Description
1 star. To give with good intent that another will benefit.
2 stars. To give with good intent that another will benefit where the benefit will commence in the short term.
3 stars. To give with good intent that another will benefit and the benefactor sees the realization of the benefit.
4 stars. To give with good intent, where the intent is shared by the benefactor and recipient, and where the benefit is realized.
5 stars. To give with good intent, where the benefit is realized as well as perpetuates.
6 stars. To give with good intent, where the intent is shared by the benefactor and recipient, where the benefit is realized, and where the benefit perpetuates through the intent of the recipient.
The higher the number of stars, the more effective the transaction in terms of altruism.
Notes corresponding to each star
1 star. This is similar to donating a cheque to a welfare organization where you have no idea how the money will be spent or how much exactly was spent directly on the indigent, and no evidence is presented how your money specifically was spent. Another example: Compiling a solution to a global problem and placing it on the internet hoping the correct party will identify it, understand the context, and apply it. This level of altruism assumes your intent may lead to an effective result.
2 stars. This level introduces the timing concept. The sooner the benefit realization commences, the lower the risk of the benefit never being realized at all.
3 stars. This level introduces evidence of benefit realization. Example: Giving blankets to the Salvation Army in winter, then inspecting the sleeping quarters and seeing your blankets covering the needy.
4 stars. This level introduces shared intent. Example, funds are provided for a career education, the education process is completed by the recipient and the career path is practised. Shared intent at a first-person level promotes the spirit of humanity and is therefore preferred to an attitude of indifference (such as a bursary awarded to the best scholar and where these parties never meet).
5 stars. This level introduces perpetual benefit without shared intent, e.g. a water fountain in the desert, a park bench, a warning sign at a cliff’s edge. As long as the benefit item exists then the benefit perpetuates.
6 stars. This level introduces the duality dynamic. In this step the recipient takes on a cognitive obligation to reciprocate the benefit. An example would be Alcoholics Anonymous, where the members perpetuate the support they received in order to help fellow sufferers.
Note that in all cases the higher the number of recipients, the greater the altruistic effect.
Problems
Three altruistic problems are presented:
1. The limits of obligation
It is generally understood that altruism means to give freely, voluntarily, without coercion and without obligation; this paper argues that effective altruism requires the recipient’s obligation. In the aforementioned duality dynamic comprising physical and cognitive elements, the benefactor shows cognitive intent to reduce the recipient’s need; the recipient in turn presents a cognitive intent to apply to the surplus. There is another cognitive element: the benefactor’s primary intent is altruistic, the recipient is obligated to the benefactor for his show of humanity. Here begin the problems with obligation.
Example, a glass of water is given to a recipient in the confines of suburbia, and a glass of water given to the same in the desert. The benefit realization is the same yet the implication to the recipient differs in either case.
- Should the recipient show the same type of obligation for each case? The presented surplus is identical in either case, as is the realized benefit. What differs is the reduction in the inherent risk to the recipient.
- Suppose the benefactor offers the recipient a glass of water in the desert on condition that the recipient converts to a particular religious order. This blurs the line between altruism and contractualism.
- There is a question whether the recipient is obligated to the benefactor specifically, or is obligated to promote the spirit of altruism to humanity in general.
- The problem of converting an obligation into a recognized moral currency, example “You’ve done X for me; without coercion and to fulfill my obligation to you I will reply with Y. Had you done Z I would reply with another action.”
- A further problem lies with the period of the obligation. Example, if the benefactor paid for the recipient’s education and the recipient could be sustained for the rest of his life, the question is for how long the recipient has to carry the obligation.
2. The limits of altruism
The benefactor may feel that the recipient is a lost cause, that no amount of support will reduce the symptoms or cause of his need; however, he still feels sorry for the beggar, still pays him and self-justifies this on grounds of mercy/ humanity, etc. At a macro level, even if all the money in the world could be divided and everyone had enough food and champagne for a week, on the eighth day everyone will be hungry again. If one accepts that the poor will always be with us, that universal need with never disappear, then altruism faces a challenge: if all the need in the world cannot be addressed then ‘effective altruism’ cannot be attained universally. If it cannot be attained, should it still be practiced?
3. The socio-cultural problem
Altruism promotes humanity and equality. If an individual suffers misfortune due to an accident, error, even the lottery of birth, altruism offers the cohesion of the human spirit; altruism promotes a sense of universal equality and goodwill. But there is a limit to how effective it can be.
In the preceding paragraphs there is a call for ‘shared intent’ whereby the benefactor and the recipient agree on what surplus will be given, consequently realized and any associated conditions. This discourse is a preferred condition for effective altruism but there is a major limitation: the two parties are often of different economic and socio-cultural classes. They have different backgrounds, different ways of expressing themselves and different ways of interpreting what the speaker is saying.
The recipient may not wish to be further patronized in terms of what he should do, already feeling inadequate and humiliated that he has to beg. There is a risk he does not understand the true intent of the benefactor, and there is a risk the recipient does not know where the solution lies; only that he has a need that requires being satisfied now.
The benefactor, in turn, has no knowledge of the recipient’s problems, limitations, stresses or intent.
At the point of shared intent where both parties are in an uncomfortably close proximity and where the benefactor tries to convey his intent at a first-person level, it is doubtful the two sub-cultures are effectively communicating, and the quality of shared intent is therefore compromised. Although communication is the key to effective altruism, in reality it has its limits.
Discussion
The starting point of this paper was the risk of ineffective altruism, which was equated with ‘pearls before swine’. Altruistic concepts and contributors to effective altruism were presented that concluded in an altruistic rating scale.
The collation of the presented information is highlighted in the following example: The world’s greatest vaccinologist, Maurice Hilleman (1920-2005), is noted to be the scientist who has saved more lives than any other modern scientist (5). He discovered over 40 vaccines (6). Through his work he is regarded to have saved millions of lives and also protected millions more from disease (7). His discovery of vaccines addressing life-threatening diseases meant that entire generations of children survived; he also contributed significantly to the greater body of vaccine research.
The result has been that many lives have been saved. Furthermore, the vaccine is affordable to the masses, is easily administered, becomes effective almost immediately and may last a lifetime. The medical formula is documented and distributed globally thus promoting mass benefit and perpetuation. To counter this: the scientist, although well-known in the medical community, was not known to the recipients of his labour, who in turn benefited without a commitment to honour his intent. Consequent to his discoveries the world has continued, which includes wars, serious crimes, and other actions contrary to the spirit of humanity.
One may ask whether the receipt of a life-saving vaccine is conditional on living a moral life, or, without any condition it merely encourages the recipient to pursue selfish motives without encumbrance.
The duality dynamic applies to both benefactor and recipient: The benefactor presents goods which the recipient accepts and applies to his need. There may be a physical reciprocation in terms of money. In terms of intent, the recipient might be grateful at the time of the transaction to receive a means to prevent a life-threatening disease from affecting himself or his family, but gratitude is not a reciprocated intent.
What is required is evidence of reciprocal intent. In the absence of intentional reciprocity one might argue that what we do in our daily lives is contingent on creating value which is turn is rewarded through monetary payment and therefore received benefit is reciprocated with created benefit in the market place. This argument fails because an important principle of altruism is missing, namely inherent intent, ideally managed at a first-person level.
Hilleman’s work satisfies three of the four requirements of effective altruism: timing, benefit realization and perpetuation. The evidence of shared intent is limited to the health-care workers who manufacture, distribute and administer the vaccine. Using the presented altruistic scale Hilleman’s efforts receives a rating of only 5 stars due to the lack of the recipient’s shared intent; consequently, the perpetuation of intent is not practiced by the majority of recipients. This rating does not mean to discredit his work but rather puts the blame on the recipients of his vaccine, namely, ourselves.
An important concept within altruism is an appreciation of humanity. A condition of humanity is shared equality (e.g. same body, shared mortality, shared metaphysical considerations, etc.). Another is shared capacity, such as the capacity to speak and to understand and apply concepts that are wider than our limited interests, such as mercy and reciprocation. To be humane is to be reminded of our inherent unity. The opposite of humane thinking is selfishness, xenophobia and egoism. Humanity is firstly a mindset, and actions with humane-intent are seen to be humane. Similarly, altruism starts with good intent, and consequent actions are altruistic. To respect altruism is to promote humanity.
Conclusion
The purpose of this paper is threefold: to distinguish between effective and ineffective altruism, to introduce an altruistic rating scale, and to present rating scale conditions. Altruism has the risk of being ineffective; for altruism to be effective four requirements should be met: timing, benefit realization, shared intent and perpetuation. By introducing altruistic concepts and contributors to effective altruism a rating scale was presented with rating conditions. Problems with altruism were also presented. The discussion collated the presented concepts with an example. Altruism is an important contributor to humanity and effective altruism should be promoted.
-end–
Author: Mark van Tienhoven, 2007
References
(All accessed May 2007)
1. Auguste Comte, A General View of Positivism, 2nd ed., trans. J. H. Bridges (London: Trubner and Co., 1865), 374.
2. http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/key/key-glos.htm
3. http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072549238/student_view0/glossary.html
4. http://www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml
5. http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=altruism
6. http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v11/n4s/full/nm1223.html
7. http://www.merck.com/newsroom/press_releases/corporate/2005_0411.html
