I’m one of those regular people who’s been hooked by the core premises of effective giving. The philosophical arguments and do-gooder examples have convinced me of two things: first, that it is morally incumbent on those of us with more to give to those with less; and second, that we ought to do so in as effective a way as possible, using tools of rationality and critical thinking.
I think there are many others who would buy into these premises. And yet, like me, they have not donated a kidney to the cause; they are not living on $25,000 a year because it’s far more than the average income in any developing nation; they spend some of their money on vacations and dinners out rather than give all that money to good causes. And, like me, they give to their local elementary school’s book drive and the local inner-city arts program, even though their money could go much further if all of it went to the programs proven to most cost-effectively save lives around the world.
Why is it so hard for people to base their giving exclusively on reason and mathematical estimates of the greatest good? The answer: it’s because we’re Humans, not GiveBots.
What Are GiveBots?
In 2008’s Nudge, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein challenge the traditional view among economists that people are fully rational creatures, always maximizing the net benefits of their rewards. They refer to these theoretical entities as Econs, in contrast to the Humans who populate the real world. Econs never act based on emotions; they are always perfect cost-benefit analysts; and they have no bad habits, psychological dispositions, or any other features that compromise their perfectly rational economic minds.
In reality, of course, people make decisions based on a host of psychological factors, some of which have very little to do with the actual net benefit of the transaction. They buy more expensive drugs because they come in pretty bottles and have brand names; they tend to stick with the status quo even when making changes would save them money in the long run; they act based on “feelings” and “emotions”. In short, they are Humans.
The field of effective giving has given us hypothetical creature similar to the Econ: theGiveBot. Just as Thaler and Sunstein’s Econs rationally maximize their personal gain with ruthless efficiency, GiveBots rationally maximize their positive impact on others. They are ceaselessly efficient in their evaluations of their personal impact on the world. They select only those charities which have been proven to be most cost-effective in improving lives, no matter how abstract or distant. They maximize every moment of their time in order to leverage as much as possible of it for the common good.
GiveBots also are tirelessly benevolent. Their finely-tuned moral compass demands that they live frugal lives because even the costs of even small indulgences could have far greater impact elsewhere.
Great. Only GiveBots don’t really exist. Humans do.
Effective giving tends to see the characteristics that make Humans Humans – such as greater emotional reactions to suffering of those close — as liabilities, but it needn’t. It might be more productive to accept what it really means to be Human and develop our strategies to make the world better accordingly.
GiveBots vs. Humans
This article is cross-posted on my blog, Science For Seekers:
I’m one of those regular people who’s been hooked by the core premises of effective giving. The philosophical arguments and do-gooder examples have convinced me of two things: first, that it is morally incumbent on those of us with more to give to those with less; and second, that we ought to do so in as effective a way as possible, using tools of rationality and critical thinking.
I think there are many others who would buy into these premises. And yet, like me, they have not donated a kidney to the cause; they are not living on $25,000 a year because it’s far more than the average income in any developing nation; they spend some of their money on vacations and dinners out rather than give all that money to good causes. And, like me, they give to their local elementary school’s book drive and the local inner-city arts program, even though their money could go much further if all of it went to the programs proven to most cost-effectively save lives around the world.
Why is it so hard for people to base their giving exclusively on reason and mathematical estimates of the greatest good? The answer: it’s because we’re Humans, not GiveBots.
What Are GiveBots?
In 2008’s Nudge, Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein challenge the traditional view among economists that people are fully rational creatures, always maximizing the net benefits of their rewards. They refer to these theoretical entities as Econs, in contrast to the Humans who populate the real world. Econs never act based on emotions; they are always perfect cost-benefit analysts; and they have no bad habits, psychological dispositions, or any other features that compromise their perfectly rational economic minds.
In reality, of course, people make decisions based on a host of psychological factors, some of which have very little to do with the actual net benefit of the transaction. They buy more expensive drugs because they come in pretty bottles and have brand names; they tend to stick with the status quo even when making changes would save them money in the long run; they act based on “feelings” and “emotions”. In short, they are Humans.
The field of effective giving has given us hypothetical creature similar to the Econ: theGiveBot. Just as Thaler and Sunstein’s Econs rationally maximize their personal gain with ruthless efficiency, GiveBots rationally maximize their positive impact on others. They are ceaselessly efficient in their evaluations of their personal impact on the world. They select only those charities which have been proven to be most cost-effective in improving lives, no matter how abstract or distant. They maximize every moment of their time in order to leverage as much as possible of it for the common good.
GiveBots also are tirelessly benevolent. Their finely-tuned moral compass demands that they live frugal lives because even the costs of even small indulgences could have far greater impact elsewhere.
Great. Only GiveBots don’t really exist. Humans do.
Effective giving tends to see the characteristics that make Humans Humans – such as greater emotional reactions to suffering of those close — as liabilities, but it needn’t. It might be more productive to accept what it really means to be Human and develop our strategies to make the world better accordingly.