A large part of backlash against effective altruism comes from people worried about EA ideals being corrosive to the “paying for public goods” or “partial philanthropy” mechanisms.
I think this is a good point. I don’t think it’s a particularly strong argument against EA, not least because EA doesn’t appear to be having any discernible impact on people’s willingness to fund climbing organizations or conference halls, but it certainly comes up a lot in critical articles.
More common forms of ostensibly “impartial” giving, like supporting global health initiatives or animal welfare, are probably better understood as examples of partial philanthropy with extended notions of “we”, like “we, living humans” or “we, mammals”.
But I don’t agree with this. Giving anonymously to unknown recipients in a faraway country via an unconnected small NGO doesn’t have any of the typical benefits associated with supporting a “collective we” (anticipated reciprocity, kin selection, identity, chauvinism against perceived enemies etc) making it about as impartial as it gets, and I don’t think people care about chicken welfare out of collective identity, never mind a stronger sense of collective identity than with potential future humans. Indeed it would be far easier to class many longtermist organizations under your definition of “partial philanthropy” as recipients are typically known members of a community with shared beliefs (and sometimes social circles), and the immediate benefit is often research the donor and the donor’s community find particularly interesting.
I think the factors you’ve highlighted that apply to some types of charity like access to public goods overlap with other motivations for giving like sense of duty, feelings of satisfaction and signalling which apply to all types of charity.
I think this is a good point. I don’t think it’s a particularly strong argument against EA, not least because EA doesn’t appear to be having any discernible impact on people’s willingness to fund climbing organizations or conference halls, but it certainly comes up a lot in critical articles.
But I don’t agree with this. Giving anonymously to unknown recipients in a faraway country via an unconnected small NGO doesn’t have any of the typical benefits associated with supporting a “collective we” (anticipated reciprocity, kin selection, identity, chauvinism against perceived enemies etc) making it about as impartial as it gets, and I don’t think people care about chicken welfare out of collective identity, never mind a stronger sense of collective identity than with potential future humans. Indeed it would be far easier to class many longtermist organizations under your definition of “partial philanthropy” as recipients are typically known members of a community with shared beliefs (and sometimes social circles), and the immediate benefit is often research the donor and the donor’s community find particularly interesting.
I think the factors you’ve highlighted that apply to some types of charity like access to public goods overlap with other motivations for giving like sense of duty, feelings of satisfaction and signalling which apply to all types of charity.