Content deleted Content added
m Open access bot: hdl updated in citation with #oabot. |
m Replaced VE ref names using RefRenamer |
||
Line 3:
{{Synthesis |article |date=December 2023}}
'''Ineffective altruism''' is the practice of ineffective giving and refers to instances where efforts to do good or contribute to a cause do not produce the intended positive impact.<ref name="
== Overview ==
[[File:Peter Singer no Fronteiras do Pensamento Porto Alegre (9616423447).jpg|thumb|320px|[[Peter Singer]] is one of the prominent philosophers behind the [[Normativity|normative framework]] of [[effective altruism]].]]
The term "ineffective altruism" refers to altruistic behavior that leads to a sub-optimal outcome with a given amount of resources.<ref name="
=== Paradox of ineffective altruism ===
Humans are motivated to give, but not motivated to give effectively.<ref name="
== Evolutionary theory of ineffective altruism ==
While plenty of studies in the behavioral sciences have demonstrated the cognitive and emotional limitations in charitable giving, some argue that the reasons behind ineffective giving run deeper.<ref name="
=== Parochialism ===
People are sensitive to effectiveness when they or their [[Kin selection|kin]] are at stake,<ref name="
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="
=== Status ===
Humans assign value to their [[social status]] within a group for survival and reproduction.<ref name="
=== Conformity ===
Many living organisms have demonstrated [[conformity]],<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Boyd |first1=Robert |last2=Richerson |first2=Peter J. |last3=Henrich |first3=Joseph |date=2011-06-28 |title=The cultural niche: Why social learning is essential for human adaptation |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |language=en |volume=108 |issue= Suppl 2|pages=10918–10925 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1100290108 |issn=0027-8424 |pmc=3131818 |pmid=21690340 |bibcode=2011PNAS..10810918B |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Muthukrishna |first1=Michael |last2=Morgan |first2=Thomas J. H. |last3=Henrich |first3=Joseph |date=2016-01-01 |title=The when and who of social learning and conformist transmission |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513815000586 |journal=Evolution and Human Behavior |volume=37 |issue=1 |pages=10–20 |doi=10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2015.05.004 |issn=1090-5138}}</ref> that is, the tendency to use dominant group norms (or [[descriptive norms]]) as guiding rules of behavior. Research on humans has also shown that [[social norm]]s have the power to influence what others do.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Pike |first1=Thomas W. |last2=Laland |first2=Kevin N. |date=2010-08-23 |title=Conformist learning in nine-spined sticklebacks' foraging decisions |journal=Biology Letters |language=en |volume=6 |issue=4 |pages=466–468 |doi=10.1098/rsbl.2009.1014 |issn=1744-9561 |pmc=2936200 |pmid=20129948}}</ref> In the judgment and decision-making research, this observation has come to be known as the [[bandwagon effect]]. The power of this bias has also been demonstrated in the field of charitable giving. In fact, people have been shown to donate more, or to exhibit an increased likelihood to donate, when they perceived donating to charity as the social norm or the [[Default effect|default choice]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Everett |first1=Jim A.C. |last2=Caviola |first2=Lucius |last3=Kahane |first3=Guy |last4=Savulescu |first4=Julian |last5=Faber |first5=Nadira S. |date=March 2015 |title=Doing good by doing nothing? The role of social norms in explaining default effects in altruistic contexts |journal=European Journal of Social Psychology |language=en |volume=45 |issue=2 |pages=230–241 |doi=10.1002/ejsp.2080 |issn=0046-2772 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Therefore, the fact that many people become increasingly in favor of donating to ineffective options, then society will see the creation of a norm for people to give ineffectively.<ref name="
== Obstacles to effective giving ==
Line 32:
==== Subjectivity ====
People often prioritize giving to charities that align with their subjectively preferred causes.<ref name="
==== 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="
==== 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 web |last=Yudkowsky |first=Eliezer |date=13 May 2007 |title=Scope Insensitivity |url=https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2ftJ38y9SRBCBsCzy/scope-insensitivity |archive-url= |access-date=16 October 2023 |website=lesswrong.com}}</ref><ref name="
=== Epistemic obstacles ===
==== Overhead aversion ====
Donors are averse to giving charities that devote a lot of their expenses to administration<ref name="
==== 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="
==== Ignorance about effective charities ====
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="
== See also ==
|