I lean toward effective altruism moving in the direction of “justice” for a few reasons.
1) I think Aaron is right that “justice-oriented arguments seem to have had a much greater chance of going “viral” than altruistic arguments”, and I think the academic literature supports him. Van Zomeren and Postumes (2008) is, from what I understand, one of the better syntheses/reviews on the psychology of collective action, and it finds that an injustice framing promotes more participation.
2) I think the effect of the different terms on moral attitudes is ambiguous at worst. Most of your examples above seem to be on the fence. In the animal welfare case, you ask for help resolving this. I can’t claim to be decisive and have a lot more doubt here than I used to, but I think “justice” is a better way to build alliances with other advocacy groups, the most promising of which are on the left, but possibly even on the right if part of a Christian justice view. (In Poland, there’s major conservative support for animal welfare because of a kind of fondness for rural life that seems more in line with justice than altruism.) I think altruism calls to mind dietary change and leafleting sorts of approaches, which have somewhat fallen out of favor in animal advocacy. To my mind, the current tactics with the most EA support, namely corporate campaigns, undercover investigations, and clean and plant-based meat, are somewhat orthogonal to the altruism-justice consideration.
3) Trends in the EA movement over time suggest to me that the term altruism is more likely to bias us in the wrong direction than justice. Initially EAs focused substantially on earning to give, donating to poverty charities, and dietary change as I note above. Over time, there has been much more interest in policy (even for poverty, where immigration and climate policy seem to have more support in EA now). AI strategy and policy, for example, seems very pressing, and most EA animal advocates I know favor institutional change over individual change. Many of the judgments we have moved away from since the earlier days of EA seem to be cases where we did the sort of things “altruism” is evocative of, and increasingly we find ourselves doing the “justice” things.
I do worry, as someone in animal advocacy who has seen all the conflict in that movement, that the “justice” framing could have a perverse impact on discourse and civility. I think at the margin we could afford to move a bit more in that direction, though.
When you’re talking about decisions made in the EA community itself, it’s best to focus on concrete issues of effectiveness and not worry so much about discourse and rhetoric. We’re equipped to make right decisions regardless of these subtle things.
EAs mostly haven’t started doing justice framed policy work. Justice isn’t equivalent to institutions and policies per se.
We’re equipped to make right decisions regardless of these subtle things.
None of give well top charities focus on women or girls, given that women and girls are valued less in poor countries, from a strictly utilitarian perspective, this is a miss for the EA movement
None of give well top charities focus on women or girls, given that women and girls are valued less in poor countries, from a strictly utilitarian perspective, this is a miss for the EA movement
But maybe the best interventions aren’t easy or efficient to target towards women only—if you give out bed nets, best to give them to everyone. If we extend this logic, we’re going to ask “why do none of our charities focus on ugly girls in poor countries?” and it never ends because you can always find a sub-group of people that is in still more dire straits on average (but it gets unlikely that that will lead to the best charity).
Generally speaking I don’t think you can easily empirically confirm or disprove that EA is ‘on the right track’, either position is going to boil down to a lot of subjective assumptions. Instead I just trust that we’re ultimately competent and encourage constant debate and reconsideration of specific charities and causes. That’s the most productive route. If thinking about justice helps you make your argument—more power to you. No need for us to worry about how each other thinks.
You may be interested in Founders’ Pledge report: Women’s Empowerment
Thanks for this.
But maybe the best interventions aren’t easy or efficient to target towards women only
There has been very little effort to find and prove this. I have seen very little research from give well or else where on women’s issues.
Give Directly could easily run a pilot and test giving to women only. I cant imagine why this would be inefficient.
When there is actual discrimination e.g. missing women It means that women’s lives are less happier. A track of “saving lives” would not care about this difference. (As the list of top charities of Give Well show).
A justice oriented thinking would adjust for this and spend more money of women’s empowerment.
Thanks much, that was good reading. Education is not like Childbirth or Breast Cancer (99% female) which are women specific. It makes sense that Girls learning outcomes can be improved without specifically targeting them. However access to school should be done specifically by targeting them.
Hypothetically if only 50% of kids can be educated, having them be all boys is much worse than if 50% of all genders make it to school. Thankfully we don’t need to make such a choice there is enough money to educate everyone to 12 years of education regardless of gender. Whats lacking is political will.
Have GiveWell examined many charities addressing maternal and neonatal health? Childbirth is a situation in which the worst-case scenario is the death of two people, one of whom literally has their whole life ahead of them, the other of whom is also relatively young and may have other young children who would suffer extreme emotional hardship from the loss of their mother (as well as the suffering caused to her partner and other relatives and friends, of course). In The Life Equation, a woman receives a caesarian which seems to save her baby (and, if I recall correctly, also herself) from near-certain death. Also, it seems like relatively basic healthcare attendance during delivery can significantly reduce the risk of long-term complications to mother and baby, like obstetric fistula or disabilities arising from hypoxia during birth.
Thanks, looks interesting—it seems from this report like what reduces maternal mortality rates is likely to be a combination of factors, or a factor that hasn’t been discovered yet. Though maybe now GiveWell has incubation grants, they’re in a position to support more investigation into the final option presented (clean birthing kits and/or associated education), which seemed promising?
Many of the judgments we have moved away from since the earlier days of EA seem to be cases where we did the sort of things “altruism” is evocative of, and increasingly we find ourselves doing the “justice” things.
Thanks for writing this. I am relatively new to EA it helps to understand history.
I think about justice without judging people, I hope that avoids hostility.
I lean toward effective altruism moving in the direction of “justice” for a few reasons.
1) I think Aaron is right that “justice-oriented arguments seem to have had a much greater chance of going “viral” than altruistic arguments”, and I think the academic literature supports him. Van Zomeren and Postumes (2008) is, from what I understand, one of the better syntheses/reviews on the psychology of collective action, and it finds that an injustice framing promotes more participation.
2) I think the effect of the different terms on moral attitudes is ambiguous at worst. Most of your examples above seem to be on the fence. In the animal welfare case, you ask for help resolving this. I can’t claim to be decisive and have a lot more doubt here than I used to, but I think “justice” is a better way to build alliances with other advocacy groups, the most promising of which are on the left, but possibly even on the right if part of a Christian justice view. (In Poland, there’s major conservative support for animal welfare because of a kind of fondness for rural life that seems more in line with justice than altruism.) I think altruism calls to mind dietary change and leafleting sorts of approaches, which have somewhat fallen out of favor in animal advocacy. To my mind, the current tactics with the most EA support, namely corporate campaigns, undercover investigations, and clean and plant-based meat, are somewhat orthogonal to the altruism-justice consideration.
3) Trends in the EA movement over time suggest to me that the term altruism is more likely to bias us in the wrong direction than justice. Initially EAs focused substantially on earning to give, donating to poverty charities, and dietary change as I note above. Over time, there has been much more interest in policy (even for poverty, where immigration and climate policy seem to have more support in EA now). AI strategy and policy, for example, seems very pressing, and most EA animal advocates I know favor institutional change over individual change. Many of the judgments we have moved away from since the earlier days of EA seem to be cases where we did the sort of things “altruism” is evocative of, and increasingly we find ourselves doing the “justice” things.
I do worry, as someone in animal advocacy who has seen all the conflict in that movement, that the “justice” framing could have a perverse impact on discourse and civility. I think at the margin we could afford to move a bit more in that direction, though.
When you’re talking about decisions made in the EA community itself, it’s best to focus on concrete issues of effectiveness and not worry so much about discourse and rhetoric. We’re equipped to make right decisions regardless of these subtle things.
EAs mostly haven’t started doing justice framed policy work. Justice isn’t equivalent to institutions and policies per se.
None of give well top charities focus on women or girls, given that women and girls are valued less in poor countries, from a strictly utilitarian perspective, this is a miss for the EA movement
Malala Fund has a report that claims girls education is the world best investment I dont see serious research from EA community on this front either.
Atleast the CEA has a good page on gender and inclusion. Its not actual recommendations of any charity, but its a start.
Justice (goals) must inform institutions and policy.
But maybe the best interventions aren’t easy or efficient to target towards women only—if you give out bed nets, best to give them to everyone. If we extend this logic, we’re going to ask “why do none of our charities focus on ugly girls in poor countries?” and it never ends because you can always find a sub-group of people that is in still more dire straits on average (but it gets unlikely that that will lead to the best charity).
Generally speaking I don’t think you can easily empirically confirm or disprove that EA is ‘on the right track’, either position is going to boil down to a lot of subjective assumptions. Instead I just trust that we’re ultimately competent and encourage constant debate and reconsideration of specific charities and causes. That’s the most productive route. If thinking about justice helps you make your argument—more power to you. No need for us to worry about how each other thinks.
You may be interested in Founders’ Pledge report: Women’s Empowerment
Thanks for this.
There has been very little effort to find and prove this. I have seen very little research from give well or else where on women’s issues.
Give Directly could easily run a pilot and test giving to women only. I cant imagine why this would be inefficient.
When there is actual discrimination e.g. missing women It means that women’s lives are less happier. A track of “saving lives” would not care about this difference. (As the list of top charities of Give Well show). A justice oriented thinking would adjust for this and spend more money of women’s empowerment.
There is a paper from the Centre for Global Development that might be relevant.
“We Can Learn a Lot about Improving Girls’ Education from Interventions That Don’t Target Girls”
Thanks much, that was good reading. Education is not like Childbirth or Breast Cancer (99% female) which are women specific. It makes sense that Girls learning outcomes can be improved without specifically targeting them. However access to school should be done specifically by targeting them.
Hypothetically if only 50% of kids can be educated, having them be all boys is much worse than if 50% of all genders make it to school. Thankfully we don’t need to make such a choice there is enough money to educate everyone to 12 years of education regardless of gender. Whats lacking is political will.
Have GiveWell examined many charities addressing maternal and neonatal health? Childbirth is a situation in which the worst-case scenario is the death of two people, one of whom literally has their whole life ahead of them, the other of whom is also relatively young and may have other young children who would suffer extreme emotional hardship from the loss of their mother (as well as the suffering caused to her partner and other relatives and friends, of course). In The Life Equation, a woman receives a caesarian which seems to save her baby (and, if I recall correctly, also herself) from near-certain death. Also, it seems like relatively basic healthcare attendance during delivery can significantly reduce the risk of long-term complications to mother and baby, like obstetric fistula or disabilities arising from hypoxia during birth.
GiveWell did an intervention report on maternal mortality 10 years ago, and at the time concluded that the evidence is less compelling than for their top charities (though they say that it is now probably out of date).
Thanks, looks interesting—it seems from this report like what reduces maternal mortality rates is likely to be a combination of factors, or a factor that hasn’t been discovered yet. Though maybe now GiveWell has incubation grants, they’re in a position to support more investigation into the final option presented (clean birthing kits and/or associated education), which seemed promising?
Thanks for writing this. I am relatively new to EA it helps to understand history.
I think about justice without judging people, I hope that avoids hostility.