Content deleted Content added
Glenwspiteri (talk | contribs) m Section title |
Glenwspiteri (talk | contribs) Reordering sections |
||
Line 1:
'''Ineffective altruism''' is the practice of ineffective giving.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal |last=Caviola |first=Lucius |last2=Schubert |first2=Stefan |last3=Greene |first3=Joshua D. |date=July 2021 |title=The Psychology of (In)Effective Altruism |url=https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.03.015 |journal=Trends in Cognitive Sciences |volume=25 |issue=7 |pages=596–607 |doi=10.1016/j.tics.2021.03.015 |issn=1364-6613}}</ref> It is a concept that has its origins in [[social psychology]],<ref name=":3" /> [[moral psychology]],<ref name=":12" /> [[philosophy]]<ref name=":7" /> and [[Charity (practice)|charitable giving]].<ref name=":13">{{Citation |title=Heuristics and Biases in Charity |date=2011-01-19 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203865972-24 |work=The Science of Giving |pages=233–254 |access-date=2023-11-23 |publisher=Psychology Press |isbn=978-0-203-86597-2}}</ref> 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=":4">{{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 |url-status=live |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 |url-status=live |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=":4" /> 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=":0" /><ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last=Burum |first=Bethany |last2=Nowak |first2=Martin A. |last3=Hoffman |first3=Moshe |date=December 2020 |title=An evolutionary explanation for ineffective altruism |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-00950-4 |journal=Nature Human Behaviour |language=en |volume=4 |issue=12 |pages=1245–1257 |doi=10.1038/s41562-020-00950-4 |issn=2397-3374}}</ref>
== Overview ==
The term "ineffective altruism" refers to altruistic behavior that leads to a sub-optimal outcome with a given amount of resources.<ref name=":3" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=What is effective altruism? {{!}} Effective Altruism |url=https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-effective-altruism#faq |access-date=2023-11-23 |website=www.effectivealtruism.org |language=en}}</ref> For instance, an altruistic act can be effective if the use of a set of resources saves as many lives as possible.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":10">{{Cite journal |last=Lewis |first=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> The term is unrelated to [[effective altruism]] as a movement, but has its origins in the ideal of effective altruism as a [[Normativity|normative framework]].
Humans are motivated to give, but not motivated to give effectively.<ref name=":1"
Such an approach to decision-making comes across as highly ineffective when applied to the for-profit sector, as Caviola et al. (2014) illustrate "Imagine a car company advertising its low overhead ratio: "90c of your dollar goes directly to building cars. Only 10% of our expenses go into planning, designing, and advertising them."<ref name=":11" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Holden |date=2007-01-17 |title=Which of these boasts is not like the others? |url=https://blog.givewell.org/2007/01/16/which-of-these-boasts-is-not-like-the-others/ |access-date=2023-11-23 |website=The GiveWell Blog |language=en-US}}</ref>▼
=== Typical example ===▼
For instance, the cost of saving a life in the [[United Kingdom]] amounts to approximately £1.1 million.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2012-09-26 |title=6 Incorporating health economics {{!}} Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance (third edition) {{!}} Guidance {{!}} NICE |url=https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg4/chapter/incorporating-health-economics |access-date=2023-11-23 |website=www.nice.org.uk}}</ref> On the other hand, an insecticide-treated bed-net in [[Sub-Saharan Africa]] can save a child's life for £5,500.<ref>{{Cite web |title=How We Produce Impact Estimates {{!}} GiveWell |url=https://www.givewell.org/impact-estimates |access-date=2023-11-23 |website=www.givewell.org |language=en}}</ref> This means that for one life saved in the UK, the same amount of money could save nearly 200 lives in Sub-Saharan Africa.▼
== Evolutionary theory of ineffective altruism ==
Line 35 ⟶ 43:
==== Overhead aversion ====
Donors are averse to giving charities that devote a lot of their expenses to administration<ref name=":17">{{Cite journal |last=Gneezy |first=U. |last2=Keenan |first2=E. A. |last3=Gneezy |first3=A. |date=2014-10-30 |title=Avoiding overhead aversion in charity |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1253932 |journal=Science |volume=346 |issue=6209 |pages=632–635 |doi=10.1126/science.1253932 |issn=0036-8075}}</ref> or running costs.<ref name=":11" /><ref name=":15" /><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Spiteri |first=Glen William |date=March 2022 |title=Does the evaluability bias hold when giving to animal charities? |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500009128 |journal=Judgment and Decision Making |volume=17 |issue=2 |pages=315–330 |doi=10.1017/s1930297500009128 |issn=1930-2975}}</ref> 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=":17" /><ref name=":11" /><ref name=":15" /> 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=":16" /> which is a significant driver of donation behavior.<ref name=":17" />
▲== The paradox of ineffective altruism ==
▲Humans are motivated to give, but not motivated to give effectively.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal |last=Burum |first=Bethany |last2=Nowak |first2=Martin A. |last3=Hoffman |first3=Moshe |date=December 2020 |title=An evolutionary explanation for ineffective altruism |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-020-00950-4 |journal=Nature Human Behaviour |language=en |volume=4 |issue=12 |pages=1245–1257 |doi=10.1038/s41562-020-00950-4 |issn=2397-3374}}</ref> In the domain of business decisions, investors look for how much return they will get for each dollar they invest. Most people would agree that getting the most value per dollar spent is a desirable and perfectly justifiable decision strategy. However, when it comes to the domain of altruistic decision-making, this line of thinking is far less common.<ref name=":13">{{Citation |title=Heuristics and Biases in Charity |date=2011-01-19 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203865972-24 |work=The Science of Giving |pages=233–254 |access-date=2023-11-23 |publisher=Psychology Press |isbn=978-0-203-86597-2}}</ref> In fact, 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=":10">{{Cite journal |last=Lewis |first=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=":11">{{Cite journal |last=Caviola |first=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/abstract/C867E1DED40D450EPQ/1 |journal=Judgment and Decision Making |language=English |volume=9 |issue=4 |pages=303–315}}</ref>
▲Such an approach to decision-making comes across as highly ineffective when applied to the for-profit sector, as Caviola et al. (2014) illustrate "Imagine a car company advertising its low overhead ratio: "90c of your dollar goes directly to building cars. Only 10% of our expenses go into planning, designing, and advertising them."<ref name=":11" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Holden |date=2007-01-17 |title=Which of these boasts is not like the others? |url=https://blog.givewell.org/2007/01/16/which-of-these-boasts-is-not-like-the-others/ |access-date=2023-11-23 |website=The GiveWell Blog |language=en-US}}</ref>
▲=== Typical example ===
▲For instance, the cost of saving a life in the [[United Kingdom]] amounts to approximately £1.1 million.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2012-09-26 |title=6 Incorporating health economics {{!}} Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance (third edition) {{!}} Guidance {{!}} NICE |url=https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg4/chapter/incorporating-health-economics |access-date=2023-11-23 |website=www.nice.org.uk}}</ref> On the other hand, an insecticide-treated bed-net in [[Sub-Saharan Africa]] can save a child's life for £5,500.<ref>{{Cite web |title=How We Produce Impact Estimates {{!}} GiveWell |url=https://www.givewell.org/impact-estimates |access-date=2023-11-23 |website=www.givewell.org |language=en}}</ref> This means that for one life saved in the UK, the same amount of money could save nearly 200 lives in Sub-Saharan Africa.
== See also ==
| |||