Content deleted Content added
Glenwspiteri (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
ce |
||
(25 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{
{{Synthesis |article |date=December 2023}}
[[File:Peter Singer no Fronteiras do Pensamento Porto Alegre (9616423447).jpg|thumb|320px|[[Peter Singer]] is one of the prominent philosophers of [[effective altruism]].]]
== Overview ==
In general, humans are motivated to do good things in the world, whether that is through donations to charity, volunteering time for a cause, or just lending a hand to someone who needs help.<ref name="Charities Aid Foundation (CAF)-2023">{{Cite web |author-link=Charities Aid Foundation |date=2023 |title=CAF World Giving Index 2023 |url=https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-research/wgi_report_2023_final.pdf?sfvrsn=402a5447_2 |access-date=14 November 2023 |website=Charities Aid Foundation (CAF)}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |author-link=Charities Aid Foundation |date=2022 |title=World Giving Index 2022: A global view of giving trends |url=https://www.cafonline.org/docs/default-source/about-us-research/caf_world_giving_index_2022_210922-final.pdf |access-date=10 November 2023 |website=Charities Aid Foundation (CAF)}}</ref> In 2022, approximately 4.2 billion people donated their money, time, or helped a stranger.<ref name="Charities Aid Foundation (CAF)-2023" /> Donating money to charity is especially substantial. For instance, 2% of the [[GDP of the United States]] goes to charitable organizations—a total of more than $450 billion in annual donations.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Giving USA 2020: The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2019. |publisher=Giving USA Foundation |year=2020 |isbn=9780998746654}}</ref> Despite the human tendency and motivation to give and engage in [[altruistic behavior]], research has shed light on an unequal motivation to give [[Effective altruism|effectively]].<ref name="Berman-2018" />
Humans are motivated to give, but often not motivated to give most effectively.<ref name="Burum-2020" /> In the title of an article published in ''[[Nature Human Behaviour]]'' in 2020, Bethany Burum, [[Martin Nowak]], and Moshe Hoffman termed this phenomenon {{em|ineffective altruism}}, that is, relatively less sensitivity to cost-effectiveness in altruistic behaviour.<ref name="Burum-2020" /><ref name="Pummer-2023">{{Cite book |last=Pummer |first=Theron |title=The Rules of Rescue: Cost, Distance and Effective Altruism |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2023 |isbn=9780190884147 |location=Oxford |pages=206–207 |language=English}}</ref> In the domain of business decisions, investors look for how much return they will get for each dollar they invest. However, when it comes to the domain of altruistic decision-making, this line of thinking is far less common.<ref name="The Science of Giving-2011" /> Most donors seem to prioritize giving to charitable organizations that spend the least possible amount on running costs in the hopes of having more of their donation reach the destination.<ref name="Lewis-2018">{{Cite journal |last1=Lewis |first1=Joshua |last2=Small |first2=Deborah |date=2018 |editor-last=Gershoff |editor-first=Andrew |editor2-last=Kozinets |editor2-first=Robert |editor3-last=White |editor3-first=Tiffany |title=Ineffective Altruism: Giving Less When Donations Do More |url=https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/2412099/volumes/v46/NA-46 |journal=NA - Advances in Consumer Research |location=Duluth, Minnesota |publisher=Association for Consumer Research |volume=46 |pages=194–198}}</ref><ref name="Caviola-2014">{{Cite journal |last1=Caviola |first1=Lucius |last2=Faulmüller |first2=Nadira |last3=Everett |first3=Jim A. C. |last4=Savulescu |first4=Julian |last5=Kahane |first5=Guy |date=July 2014 |title=The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives? |url=https://www.proquest.com/docview/1548669952 |journal=Judgment and Decision Making |language=English |volume=9 |issue=4 |pages=303–315 |doi=10.1017/S1930297500006185 |s2cid=18730753 |id={{ProQuest|1548669952}} |doi-access=free|pmid=25279024 |pmc=4179876 }}</ref>
== Evolutionary explanations ==
Line 21 ⟶ 16:
=== Parochialism ===
People are sensitive to effectiveness when they or their [[Kin selection|kin]] are at stake,<ref name="Nowak-2006">{{Cite journal |last=Nowak |first=M. A. |date=2006 |title=Five rules for the evolution of cooperation |journal=Science |volume=314 |issue=5805 |pages=1560–1563 |doi=10.1126/science.1133755 |pmid=17158317 |pmc=3279745 |bibcode=2006Sci...314.1560N }}</ref> but not so much when confronted with a needy stranger.<ref name="Burum-2020" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hamilton |first=W. D. |date=September 1963 |title=The Evolution of Altruistic Behavior |url=https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/497114 |journal=The American Naturalist |language=en |volume=97 |issue=896 |pages=354–356 |doi=10.1086/497114 |s2cid=84216415 |issn=0003-0147 |via=The University of Chicago Press Journals}}</ref><ref name="Darwin-1859">{{Cite book |last=Darwin |first=C. |title=On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life |publisher=P. F. Collier & Son |year=1859}}</ref> Donors have been shown to respond to impact and efficacy when giving to themselves, but less so when donating to charity.<ref name="Burum-2020" /><ref name="Jaeger-2022" /> While cost-effectiveness information of charities tends to be hard to evaluate,<ref name="Caviola-2020">{{Cite journal |last1=Caviola |first1=Lucius |last2=Schubert |first2=Stefan |last3=Nemirow |first3=Jason |date=March 2020 |title=The many obstacles to effective giving
Throughout human evolutionary history, residing in small, tightly-knit groups has given rise to prosocial emotions and intentions towards kin and ingroup members, rather than universally extending to those outside the group boundaries.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Aktipis |first1=Athena |last2=Cronk |first2=Lee |last3=Alcock |first3=Joe |last4=Ayers |first4=Jessica D. |last5=Baciu |first5=Cristina |last6=Balliet |first6=Daniel |last7=Boddy |first7=Amy M. |last8=Curry |first8=Oliver Scott |last9=Krems |first9=Jaimie Arona |last10=Muñoz |first10=Andrés |last11=Sullivan |first11=Daniel |last12=Sznycer |first12=Daniel |last13=Wilkinson |first13=Gerald S. |last14=Winfrey |first14=Pamela |date=July 2018 |title=Understanding cooperation through fitness interdependence |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-018-0378-4 |journal=Nature Human Behaviour |language=en |volume=2 |issue=7 |pages=429–431 |doi=10.1038/s41562-018-0378-4 |pmid=31097813 |s2cid=49667807 |issn=2397-3374|hdl=1871.1/72e0524e-788d-4f93-90f8-a6f04369a2a7 |hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Greene-2013">{{Cite book |last=Greene |first=Joshua |title=Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them |publisher=Penguin Press |year=2013 |isbn=978-0-14-312605-8 |location=New York, NY |language=en}}</ref> Humans tend to exhibit [[Parochialism|parochial]] tendencies, showing concern for their [[In-group favoritism|in-groups]], but not [[In-group and out-group|out-groups]].<ref name="Jaeger-2022" /><ref name="Burum-2020" /> This parochial inclination can hinder effective altruism, especially as a significant portion of human suffering occurs in distant regions.<ref name="Singer-2009">{{Cite book |last=Singer |first=Peter |title=The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty |publisher=Random House |year=2009 |isbn=978-1-4000-6710-7 |edition=1st |location=United States |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Bloom-2017">{{Cite journal |last=Bloom |first=Paul |date=January 2017 |title=Empathy and Its Discontents |journal=Trends in Cognitive Sciences |volume=21 |issue=1 |pages=24–31 |doi=10.1016/j.tics.2016.11.004 |pmid=27916513 |s2cid=3863278 |issn=1364-6613 |via=Elsevier Science Direct}}</ref> Despite the potential impact of donations in different parts of the world, individuals in rich and developed countries often view assistance to physically distant others as less important than helping those in close proximity.<ref name="Bloom-2017" /><ref name="Jaeger-2022" /><ref name="Burum-2020" /> Contrary to maximizing impact and effectiveness with their donations, many individuals commit to donating money to local charities and organizations to which they have a personal connection, thus living by the notion of "charity begins at home
=== Status seeking ===
Line 34 ⟶ 29:
=== Subjective preferences ===
People often prioritize giving to charities that align with their subjectively preferred causes.<ref name="Berman-2018">{{Cite journal |last1=Berman |first1=Jonathan Z. |last2=Barasch |first2=Alixandra |last3=Levine |first3=Emma E. |last4=Small |first4=Deborah A. |date=May 2018 |title=Impediments to Effective Altruism: The Role of Subjective Preferences in Charitable Giving |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0956797617747648 |journal=Psychological Science |language=en |volume=29 |issue=5 |pages=834–844 |doi=10.1177/0956797617747648 |pmid=29659341 |s2cid=4901791 |issn=0956-7976 |via=Association for Psychological Science}}</ref> Commonly, people believe charity to be a subjective decision which should not be motivated by numbers, but by care for the cause given the lack of responsibility attributed to the effects of donations.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Lerner |first1=J.S. |last2=Tetlock |first2=P.E. |date=1999 |title=Accounting for the effects of accountability |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10087938/ |journal=Psychol Bull |volume=125 |issue=2 |pages=255–275 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255 |pmid=10087938 |via=PubMed}}</ref> This aligns with the theory of [[warm-glow giving]] originally proposed by the economist [[James Andreoni]]. According to Andreoni (1990), individuals gain satisfaction from the act of giving but are not concerned about the benefits generated by their act.<ref name="Andreoni-1990">{{Cite journal |last=Andreoni |first=James |date=1990 |title=Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. |journal=The Economic Journal |volume=100 |issue=401 |pages=464–477|doi=10.2307/2234133 |jstor=2234133 |s2cid=6001457 }}</ref><ref name="Berman-2018" />
=== Narrow moral circle ===
[[Moral circle expansion]] is the concept of increasing one's number and kind of subjects deserving of moral concern over time.<ref name="Anthis-2021">{{Cite journal |last1=Anthis |first1=Jacy Reese |last2=Paez |first2=Eze |date=2021-06-01 |title=Moral circle expansion: A promising strategy to impact the far future
=== Scope neglect (insensitivity) ===
[[Scope neglect]] (or ''scope insensitivity'') is the idea that people are numb to the number of victims in large, high-stake humanitarian situations.<ref>{{Cite
== Epistemic obstacles ==
=== Overhead aversion ===
Donors are averse to giving to charities that devote a lot of their expenses to administration<ref name="Gneezy-2014">{{Cite journal |last1=Gneezy |first1=U. |last2=Keenan |first2=E. A. |last3=Gneezy |first3=A. |date=2014-10-30 |title=Avoiding overhead aversion in charity |journal=Science |volume=346 |issue=6209 |pages=632–635 |doi=10.1126/science.1253932 |pmid=25359974 |bibcode=2014Sci...346..632G |s2cid=206557384 |issn=0036-8075}}</ref> or running costs.<ref name="Caviola-2014" /><ref name="Caviola-2020" /> Several studies have demonstrated the ubiquitous effect of [[Uri Gneezy|overhead aversion]] which is commonly attributed to people's conflation between overhead spending and charity cost-effectiveness (or impact).<ref name="Gneezy-2014" /><ref name="Caviola-2014" /><ref name="Caviola-2020" /> Furthermore, some have argued that when donors learn that a charity uses their donation to fund running costs, donors experience a diminished feeling of warm-glow,<ref name="Andreoni-1990" /> which is a significant driver of donation behavior.<ref name="Gneezy-2014" />
=== Quantifiability scepticism ===
[[File:QALY graph-en.svg|thumb|320px|Demonstration of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for two individuals. Individual A (who did not receive an intervention) has fewer QALYs than individual B (who received an intervention).]]
Intangible outcomes (such as health interventions, charity effectiveness) are hard to quantify, and many people doubt that they can every be quantified and compared.<ref name="Caviola-2021" /> However, in disciplines such as [[health economics]], health outcomes and interventions are quantified and evaluated using metrics such as [[Quality-adjusted life year|quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)]].<ref>{{Cite book |
=== Limited awareness ===
The [[effective altruism]] movement does substantial work on identifying the world's most effective charities through charity evaluators such as [[GiveWell]], [[Giving What We Can]], and [[Animal Charity Evaluators]]. However, many people are unaware of these organizations and the charities they evaluate,<ref name="Caviola-2020" /> and are strongly driven by emotional responses when estimating the effectiveness of a charity;<ref name="Caviola-2020" /> choosing instead to prioritize those causes to which they have a personal connection.<ref name="Berman-2018" />
Line 60 ⟶ 55:
* [[Altruism (ethics)]]
* [[Charitable organization]]
* [[Evidence-based policy]]
* [[List of cognitive biases]]
Line 75 ⟶ 69:
{{Authority control}}
[[Category:Wikipedia Student Program]]
[[Category:
[[Category:Moral psychology]]
[[Category:Social psychology]]
|