Here is a qoute to an important, awkward, and sometimes neglected question in effective altruism. I think Peter Singer answers it sufficiently and succinctly.
What if one’s act reduces suffering, but in order to act one must lie or harm an innocent person?
In general, effective altruists recognize that breaking moral rules against killing or seriously harming an innocent person will almost always have worse consequences than following these rules. Even thoroughgoing utilitarians, who judge actions to be right or wrong entirely on the basis of their consequences, are wary of speculative reasoning that suggests we should violate basic human rights today for the sake of some distant future good. They know that under Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, a vision of a utopian future society was used to justify unspeakable atrocities, and even today some terrorists justify their crimes by imagining they will bring about a better future. No effective altruist wants to repeat those tragedies.”
Here is a qoute to an important, awkward, and sometimes neglected question in effective altruism. I think Peter Singer answers it sufficiently and succinctly.
Peter Singer, The Logic of Effective Altruism, Boston Review