AN EVALUATION OF THE CONCEPT OF EFFECTIVE ALTRUISM IN PETER SINGER

Abstract

Effective Altruism differs from traditional altruism because it focuses on effectiveness of achieving its objectives. Jakub Synowice corroborates this in his work "Ethics for Everyday Heroes: From Utilitarianism to Effective Altruism." At the forefront of the emergence of this discipline is Peter Singer-an avowed utilitarian. In a sense, it is the application of utilitarian principles (especially the principle of the greatest good to the greatest number) to traditional altruism that gave rise to effective altruism. To give footing to this work therefore, We began this article with a brief excursus of altruism objecting to the objections of the egoists along the way. Next, a section was spent tracing the development of Peter Singer's thought as regards effective altruism since this work is concerned with his contribution to effective altruism. For the purpose of producing a more holistic and balanced work the key tenets of effective altruism were expounded bringing to the open the contributions of other effective altruists like Mackaskill. Once this is done, it is discovered that effective altruism has striking resemblance with Christian ethics. We trailed this point following the work of Alida Liberman who posits that there are points both of divergence and convergence between effective altruism and Christian ethics. Mackaskill in reviewing Liberman's work, observes that the point of convergence between Christian ethics and effective altruism is in the latter's first key tenet-the injunction to give. The point of divergence he observes is in the second key tenet of effective altruism namely that giving should be effective. He argues that Christian giving is limited in scope and hence not effective according to the standard of effective altruism. I agree with Liberman in the first point that both effective altruism and Christian ethics are committed to giving, however I disagree with her on the point that Christian giving is limited in scope. In fact I do not only argue that Christian giving is not limited in scope, I went ahead to argue that effective altruism as conceived by Peter Singer and other effective altruists is limited in scope. Among other critical evaluation of the positions of the effective altruists, I examined critically Peter Singers repeated admonition that one should make his giving as public as possible.

Full text

www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org
AN EVALUATION OF THE CONCEPT OF EFFECTIVE ALTRUISM IN PETER
SINGER
JOSEPH NNAEMEKA CHUKWUMA, TOBIAS CHUKWUEMEKA OZIOKO, OBIORA ANICHEBE,
GABRIEL CHUKWUEBUKA OTEGBULU, CHARLES KENECHUKWU OKORO, GEORGE
OHABUENYI ABAH*, COLLINS IKENNA UGWU, ANTHONY CHUKWUDI AREJI
Department of Philosophy, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, P.M.B. 410001, Enugu State, Nigeria
ABSTRACT
Effective Altruism differs from traditional altruism because it focuses on effectiveness of achieving its objectives. Jakub
Synowice corroborates this in his work “Ethics for Everyday Heroes: From Utilitarianism to Effective Altruism.” At the
forefront of the emergence of this discipline is Peter Singer- an avowed utilitarian. In a sense, it is the application of
utilitarian principles (especially the principle of the greatest good to the greatest number) to traditional altruism that gave
rise to effective altruism. To give footing to this work therefore, We began this article with a brief excursus of altruism
objecting to the objections of the egoists along the way. Next, a section was spent tracing the development of Peter Singer’s
thought as regards effective altruism since this work is concerned with his contribution to effective altruism. For the
purpose of producing a more holistic and balanced work the key tenets of effective altruism were expounded bringing to
the open the contributions of other effective altruists like Mackaskill. Once this is done, it is discovered that effective
altruism has striking resemblance with Christian ethics. We trailed this point following the work of Alida Liberman who
posits that there are points both of divergence and convergence between effective altruism and Christian ethics. Mackaskill
in reviewing Liberman’s work, observes that the point of convergence between Christian ethics and effective altruism is in
the latter’s first key tenet - the injunction to give. The point of divergence he observes is in the second key tenet of effective
altruism namely that giving should be effective. He argues that Christian giving is limited in scope and hence not effective
according to the standard of effective altruism. I agree with Liberman in the first point that both effective altruism and
Christian ethics are committed to giving, however I disagree with her on the point that Christian giving is limited in scope.
In fact I do not only argue that Christian giving is not limited in scope, I went ahead to argue that effective altruism as
conceived by Peter Singer and other effective altruists is limited in scope. Among other critical evaluation of the positions
of the effective altruists, I examined critically Peter Singers repeated admonition that one should make his giving as public
as possible.
KEYWORDS: Concept, Evaluation, Effective Altruism, Traditional altruism
Received: Jun 09, 2020; Accepted: Jun 29, 2020; Published: Sep 25, 2020; Paper Id.: IJMPERDJUN20201411
INTRODUCTION
In the past, philosophy was perceived as purely speculative. In recent times however, the horizon is changing. A
vivid example of this changing horizon; the act of combining speculation and action is found in the philosophy of
effective altruism. Here (in effective altruism), philosophy not only leads to action but the action itself is thoroughly
rationalized. Presently we have effective altruism both as a philosophy and a social movement; the social movement
drives the philosophy to practical action while the philosophy continues to provide both the ground for it and a
continuous evaluation of the action of the social movement, giving it direction. Altruism; the act of living for others
have always been there with philosophers championing the rational battle either for or against it. Those who belong
to the later camp are usually the egoists who think that one should live mainly for him/her self and not for others.
Original Article
International Journal of Mechanical and Production
Engineering Research and Development (IJMPERD)
ISSN (P): 2249–6890; ISSN (E): 2249–8001
Vol. 10, Issue 3, Jun 2020, 14803–14816
© TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.

14804 Joseph Nnaemeka Chukwuma, Tobias Chukwuemeka Ozioko, Obiora Anichebe, Gabriel Chukwuebuka Otegbulu,
Charles Kenechukwu Okoro, George Ohabuenyi Abah*, Collins Ikenna Ugwu, Anthony Chukwudi Areji
Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Philosophers such, as Peter Singer, contend that it is not just enough to live for other, to give for the good of the other, but
that it (the giving) must be effective. That is to say, that care should be taken to ensure that the giving produces the best
possible result. In what follows, we shall critically examine effective altruism especially as espoused by Peter singer.
From Altruism to Effective Altruism
Etymologically the term "altruism” is derived from the Latin "alter" meaning "other." The coinage of the term altruism is
credited to the French philosopher Auguste Comte (who is also the founder of Positivism). He used the term to describe
his ethical doctrine, which he summed up in the phrase: "Live for others".
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines altruism as behavior that is motivated by a desire to benefit
someone other than oneself for that person’s sake. However, sometimes the word is used more broadly to refer to behavior
that benefits others, regardless of its motive. Here altruism is used in contra-distinction from such terms as “self-interested”
or “selfish” or “egoistic” the later terms are used to describe behaviours that are motivated solely by the desire to benefit
oneself.
Richard Kraut in his article contribution to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy distinguishes between acting
morally and altruism. He posits that some of what we do in our interactions with other people is morally motivated but not
altruistic. To drive his point home he presents the following analogy.
Suppose A has borrowed a book from B and has promised to return it within a week. When A returns the book by
the deadline, his motive might be described as moral: he has freely made a promise, and he takes himself to have an obligation
to keep such promises. His motive is simply to keep his word; this is not an example of altruism. But if A gives B a book as
a gift, thinking that B will enjoy it and find it useful, he is acting simply out of a desire to benefit B. His motive in this case
is altruistic.1
Among the most prominent critics of altruism is Friedrich Nietzsche who held that the idea that it is rather
degrading and demeaning to the self than virtuous to treat others as more important than oneself. He further argues that such
idea hinders the individual's pursuit of self-development, excellence and creativity. In his view, altruism is an ideology
fabricated by the weak for the weak. But is altruism really an Ideology fabricated by the weak for the weak? The opposite
seems more plausible. It takes a person who is truly strong, to freely (free in the true sense of it; that is without compulsion or
fear) choose what will benefit others above what will benefit only him/her self. Self interest (self love or selfishness) seems to
be innate in humans. It is not learnt. This is apodictically seen in the case of little children. When they a given a gift (say a
biscuit), if the same person who gave them that biscuit plead with them to give some to him, many of them would decline and
in many cases try to hide the biscuit at their backs. This goes a long way to prove that selfishness is not learnt; it is innate. It
is rather charity that needs to be learnt. Common sense tells us then that the stronger person that exhibits the character that is
learnt while the weaker person continues effortlessly in the trait that is innate. In addition, it is not always true that altruism
hinders the individual's pursuit of self-development, excellence and creativity. As we shall see, sometimes it even advocates
it for the better you are, the more you are able to help others.
Another famous critic of altruism is the Objectivist Ayn Rand (1905 - 1982). She is notorious for her view that most
problems in the world come from the doctrine of Altruism. She argues that the view that sacrificing yourself in order to serve
others is morally superior to pursuing your own self-interest cannot be rationally justified. The question that Ayn Rand needs
to answer is whether it is rationally justified to do or hold the opposite view, that it is morally superior to pursuing your own

An Evaluation of the Concept of Effective Altruism in Peter Singer 14805
www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org
self-interest over the interest of others? It is almost self evident that the cause of most problems in the world is egoism rather
than altruism. Most problems are results of clash of interests. If one person or both parties altruistically value the interest of
the other more, such tensions and consequent fight may be averted.
The philosophy of Altruism advocates that an action is ethically right if it brings good consequences to others;
consequently, altruism is often seen as a form of Consequentialism. Altruism is also similar to Utilitarianism in that
utilitarianism prescribes acts that maximize good consequences for all of society; the only different being that Altruism does
not necessary take into account maximizing good consequences for the actor.
It is the application of utilitarian principles to altruism that gave rise to effective altruism. Peter Singer a well known
and self acclaimed utilitarian is at the fore front of the emergence of effective altruism. Worthy of note also is the fact that
most proponents of effective altruism are utilitarians. Effective altruism differs from “traditional” altruism because it is
focused on the effectiveness of achieving its objectives. It is effective in its selection of targets: only “cost-effective” targets
are chosen as targets for Effective Altruism.2
Peter Singer and The Emergence of Effective Altruism
Effective Altruism both as a philosophy and a social movement owes a lot to Singer and utilitarian philosophy. It is however
pertinent to note ab initio that Effective Altruism cannot be limited to Singer’s thinking or even to utilitarianism; the
movement is much broader and open for new ideas and the idea of effective altruism is developed by people with different
philosophical backgrounds.2 In this piece, we shall nevertheless focus on singer’s contribution. In a sense, Singer can be said
to be the greatest contributor to the development of effective altruism. Many other philosophers supporting the idea are
Singer’s followers.
In Singer’s earliest works, in the very beginning of his philosophical career, he sought to make philosophical
justification for eradicating pain of animals and to propose a good reasoning to convince people to improve the quality of
life of those living in extreme poverty. These too topics as he admitted himself were the most important to him. The reason
he gives for focusing on them is that they were (before his arrival to the scene) neglected4
As regards his first interest- eradicating pain of animals, Jakub Synowiec reconstructs his (Singer’s) argument thus:
A utilitarian must know the answers to questions like: what is pain, what is pleasure, whose pleasure counts
and how to achieve the greatest happiness of the largest number of beings? One of the fathers of Effective
Altruism and a declared utilitarian, Peter Singer, had to answer the same questions. His philosophical
inquiries, presented in many books and shorter texts, reveal his answers. In his main work, Practical Ethics,
Singer formulates the fundamentals of his philosophical thinking and claims that what counts in utilitarian
calculations are interests, namely, what a being may desire (Singer, 1979, p. 12). Although he uses a
genuine term, “interests”, his ethics remains hedonistic as for him the ability to feel pain is a minimum
requirement for a being to be considered as having interests (Singer, 1979, p. 50). The more conscious a
being is the more interests it has. But, in Singer's ethics, all sentient beings are equal – the interest of a
being is equal to the same interest of another being – says the rule of equal consideration of interests
introduced by Singer (Singer, 1979, p. 19). Based on this, Singer claimed it is wrong to neglect the interests
of animals for the sake of the interests of people.5

14806 Joseph Nnaemeka Chukwuma, Tobias Chukwuemeka Ozioko, Obiora Anichebe, Gabriel Chukwuebuka Otegbulu,
Charles Kenechukwu Okoro, George Ohabuenyi Abah*, Collins Ikenna Ugwu, Anthony Chukwudi Areji
Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
Singer observed to his chagrin that most people prefers what he (Singer) perceives as trivial interests of people such as better
tasting or cheaper food to the crucial interests of animals (life, life without pain). He called such an attitude: speciesism; a
concept he popularized by his works. His arguments convince many effective altruists to become vegans or struggle to reduce
the suffering of animals.
Singer takes up the other most important topic, that is, his philosophical concern for people living in extreme poverty
in his first article on practical ethics titled “Famine Affluence and Morality” which he wrote around 1972. Writing to an
audience mainly of affluent developed countries, he tries to convince them to take plight and interests of people living in
distant lands. In his article, Singer argues that people living in extreme poverty need help and providing this help will be
cheap for those in affluent countries. He observed however that people sometimes prefer to help themselves in less important
needs rather than help others in their crucial needs. To buttress this point, he sites for an example, the fact that British
government gave thirty times more money to improve hypersonic transportation (the Concorde programme) than to support
people living in extreme conditions after a catastrophe in Bengal in 1971. For Singer, the way we react to peoples' suffering
in distant countries cannot be justified from the point of view of ethics.6
In this short article printed in United States by Random House, an imprint of The Random House Publishing Group,
Singer formulated his famous argument that eradication of extreme poverty is a moral duty.7 He presents two premises from
which we can draw conclusion. The first and second premises are
“Suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.”
“If it is in your power to prevent something very bad from happening, without sacrificing anything else morally
significant, we ought to do it.”
To buttress the point he is making in this second premise he presents an analogy which he repeats and further
reconstructs in “the life you can save” as follows
On your way to work, you pass a small pond. On hot days, children sometimes play in the pond,
which is only about knee deep. The weather’s cool today, though, and the hour is early, so you
are surprised to see a child splashing about in the pond. As you get closer, you see that it is a very
young child, just a toddler, who is flailing about, unable to stay upright or walk out of the pond.
You look for the parents or babysitter, but there is no one else around. The child is unable to keep
his head above the water for more than a few seconds at a time. If you don’t wade in and pull him
out, he seems likely to drown. Wading in is easy and safe, but you will ruin the new shoes you
bought only a few days ago, and get your suit wet and muddy. By the time you hand over the
child to someone responsible for him, and change your clothes, you’ll be late for work. What
should you do?8
Singer observes that whenever he presents the above question to his students they usually answer that they would go in and
save the child not minding their shoes or cloths not even the prospect of going let to work would deter them. In Famine,
Affluence and Morality, Singer argues that what matters is that the life is saved. It does not matter if the child is a neighbor’s
child few yards away or a Bengali whose name one may never know.
The third premise which we can deduce from singer’s writings especially “the life you can save” is

An Evaluation of the Concept of Effective Altruism in Peter Singer 14807
www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org
In donating to aid agencies, you can prevent the suffering mentioned in premise one or the conditions stated in premise two.
The conclusion of the argument is “if you do not donate to aid agencies, you are doing something wrong”
Singer takes the conclusion of this argument to the extreme. He notes that “the outcome of this argument is that our
traditional moral categories are upset. The traditional distinction between duty and charity cannot be drawn, or at least, not
in the place we normally draw it.”9 By this singer means that giving money to aid agencies are not to be called charity because
it is our duty to do so. We are morally bound to do as just as the passerby is morally bound to save the child who is drowning
in the pond. The above argument contradicts and in a sense a somewhat critic of Richard Kraut’s distinction between acting
morally and altruism as mentioned earlier.
The Key Tenets of Effective Altruism
In a bid to define effective altruism MacAskill states “as I and the Centre for Effective Altruism define it, effective altruism
is the project of using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible, and taking action on that
basis.”10 Effective altruism is a philosophical idea which metamorphosed into a social movement – Effective Altruism. The
aim of Effective Altruism as stated by one of its major proponents MacAskill is to make the world as good a place as is
possible.11 If presented from the point of view of an individual effective altruist, his/her aim can be presented as “to do the
most good you can”. It is the work of philosophy and philosophers to explicate what exactly the most good means.
Nevertheless, since the philosophy supporting Effective Altruism is mainly utilitarianism, many of its members understand
“good” in a hedonistic sense
According to Peter Singer, Effective Altruism is “based on a very simple idea: we should do the most good we can”
with our altruistic resources. For Singer, “doing the most good we can” is determined by the differential impact we can make
with our altruistic resources. He insists that we should make “the most difference”, thereby having “the biggest positive
impact.”12 But how do we determine what makes the most difference or brings about the biggest impact? MacAskill asks
similar questions
“If we want to claim that one course of action is, as far as we know, the most effective way of increasing the welfare
of all, we simply cannot avoid making philosophical assumptions. How should we value improving quality of life compared
to saving lives? How should we value alleviating non-human animal suffering compared to alleviating human suffering?
How should we value mitigating risks of human extinction, with the loss of hundreds of trillions of future lives that that
would involve? When it comes to small chances of doing huge amounts of good, should we simply maximize expected value,
or is some other decision theory correct? How should we act in light of deep uncertainty about what the morally right thing
to do is?”13
In the light of these, effective altruists select three major targets of their altruism. William MacAskill, enumerates these
targets as
 Eradicating extreme poverty (which is also the UN millennial development goal),
 Reducing suffering of animals and
 Preventing extinction of life on Earth.14
The selection of these targets evidently has within it, the imprint of Singer’s thought pattern. Singer himself devotes
a chapter of his book “The Most Good You Can” do for each of these cases, however when considering preventing life

14808 Joseph Nnaemeka Chukwuma, Tobias Chukwuemeka Ozioko, Obiora Anichebe, Gabriel Chukwuebuka Otegbulu,
Charles Kenechukwu Okoro, George Ohabuenyi Abah*, Collins Ikenna Ugwu, Anthony Chukwudi Areji
Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
extinction, he focuses on humans. It is important to note however that effective altruists are still debating among them as
regards the targets. Luke Muehlhauser argues there are four areas of activity of Effective Altruism: poverty reduction, meta-
effective altruism, the far future of people and animal suffering.15 MacAskill is not dogmatic about the targets, he calls them
“our best guesses” and claims that if there is a good evidence or arguments to convince them that they could do more good
by doing something else, then they would do that instead. One thing Effective altruists generally agree however is that many
traditional areas of charity, like education, art, aiding victims of catastrophes or supporting the local community, are not the
targets of Effective Altruism.16
Eradicating extreme poverty in the world which is the first of the targets of Effective Altruism was always a part of
people's concern and was a part of practical ethics long before effective altruism was created. The two other targets were
generally neglected and became treated as a major ethical problem only at the end of the 20th century. The difference that
Effective Altruism brought to the table is the application of science to our emotional need of helping. They engage in research
to evaluate charity programs in order to choose the most effective ones. It is usually the most effective programs that are
supported by the Effective Altruists’ community. Effective altruists claim that there is a great difference between the most
effective organizations and just effective organizations; therefore, donating to the former and not the latter makes a significant
difference. MacAskill shows an example, where “the best healthcare programme is estimated to be five hundred times more
effective than the worst (which, remember, is still a good programme)” 17
Effective altruists take their business of supporting organizations seriously. For William MacAskill, the act of aiding
is an investment. Thus, just as we normally try to maximize the benefits when we invest our money, the benefits we get when
we aid should also be maximized. He insists that we do not imitate the attitude of a careless person who entering a random
shop with €100 who gives the money to the shop assistant and asks to fill their bags with food and does not look at prices,
calories or even if what the shop assistant puts into the bag would really satisfy their nutritional needs. She/he does not even
think about the possibility that what the bag contains might be harmful.
He observed that most people take that attitude when it comes to aiding. They give money to a random beggar
without having any idea what the effects of their help would be. He notes that similar things happen when people support a
random charity programme because they are convinced by talks that appeals to their emotions. He strongly stated that
choosing how to help is not a matter of the heart but of mathematics. Hence, it is by comparing hard data and not by listening
to talks that appeal to the emotion that the best programmes and the best aid organizations can be selected.18
The last two targets have been the source of criticism of effective altruism. It has been argued that redirecting
resources from the needs of people to the needs of animals or to support research on preventing possible catastrophes is not
justified. Contrarily, the Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom argues that on the basis of calculations, the third area is also the
most important one, and the highest priority should be put on preventing human extinction, because the number of people
living now is very small compared to the number of their descendants that might be living in the future19
In The Most Good You Can Do. How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically, Peter Singer
considers a number situations to determine which make the most deference. Take for instance, the case of giving directly.
One has $1,000 and you wish to give this amount to a poor family. The two options available are.
A. give it to an American poor family; or
B. give it to an impoverished African family.

An Evaluation of the Concept of Effective Altruism in Peter Singer 14809
www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org
Singer argues that giving it to impoverished African family will be a better option because the American poor family is very
likely to be already receiving aid from the government or domestic charities. He notes that that aid may not be enough to
raise (this American family) out of poverty. But the American family will still be better off than the African family who is
very likely getting nothing both from the government and (or) fellow-citizens. Moreover the African family remains in a
much more impoverished context. Hence, “the cost of making a lasting, positive difference to the life of a poor American is
far higher than the cost of making such a difference to the life of someone who is poor by global standards.”20
Singer considers another situation. In this case, one has $40,000 to donate to the best cause you can find. Again
there are two options available to him/her
Option A. supply one blind person in the United States with a guide dog; or
Option B. preventing anywhere between four hundred and two thousand causes of blindness in developing countries.
In this case, the number of beneficiaries varies. Giving a guide dog to a US citizen will benefit only one person
while avoiding blindness to developing countries will benefit between four hundred and two thousand people. Moreover, it
is apparently more important to prevent blindness than to give a guiding dog. Hence, the option B is to be chosen for the
same reason invoked in Giving directly, namely because it brings about larger benefits.21
Another case that Singer considers is the one that benefits the same number of people but to varying degree. In this
case one has $100,000 to donate to the best cause you can find. The options available to the person are
A. contributing to build a new museum wing, thereby giving an enhanced aesthetic experience to 100,000 visitors;
or
B. contributing to restore or preserve the sight of 1,000 poor people in developing countries.
Just as in previous case, the option B is the preferred option because restoring or preserving one’s own sight is a
greater benefit than seeing a new museum wing. Conclusion can be drawn from this that doing the most good implies bringing
about the greatest benefit to the greatest number.
Effective Altruism and Christian Ethics
MacAskill, in reviewing Alida Liberman’s ‘Effective altruism and Christianity: possibilities for productive collaboration’
observes that there are points both of convergence and divergence when it comes to the relationship between effective
altruism and Christian ethics. One of the two tenets at the core of effective altruism, namely that we should give away a
significant portion of our income to assist the world’s neediest people, is shared by the long-standing Christian tradition that
recognizes a strong moral obligation to help the poor. (A similar point has been made by Toby Ord in his article ‘Global
poverty and the demands of morality’). The obligation to give away large amounts of one’s surplus income to sustain the
poor is firmly ensconced in church history. Some Catholic theologians demand significantly more of us than most Effective
Altruists, arguing that your surplus possessions are not rightfully yours if someone else is in need of them. For example,
Ambrose, the 4th century Bishop of Milan, says that when you give to charity, “You are not making a gift of what is yours
to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the
common use of everyone”22 Similarly, the Decretum Gratiani, a core compilation of medieval Catholic canon law, states that
“a man who keeps for himself more than he needs commits theft,” and “the bread that you hold back belongs to the needy,

14810 Joseph Nnaemeka Chukwuma, Tobias Chukwuemeka Ozioko, Obiora Anichebe, Gabriel Chukwuebuka Otegbulu,
Charles Kenechukwu Okoro, George Ohabuenyi Abah*, Collins Ikenna Ugwu, Anthony Chukwudi Areji
Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
the clothes that you store away belong to the naked.”23 Thomas Aquinas goes even further, claiming that as a matter of natural
law it does not count as stealing for a person in need to take surplus wealth from someone else.24
The Protestant are not left out in this tradition as well. For example, John Wesley, the 18th century founder of the
Methodist church, lived frugally and donated all of his surplus income to the poor. Wesley records that in a year when his
living expenses were £28 and his income £30, he gave away £2; as his income steadily rose, he continued living on £28 and
giving the rest away, even in years in which his income was over £1400.25 Wesley is quoted to have said in sermon 116 “If
you have any desire to escape the damnation of hell, give all you can; otherwise I can have no more hope of your salvation,
than that of Judas Iscariot.” This definitely is much harsher than contemporary Effective Altruists would demand.
The other tenet of the Effective Altruists, that we should use the best available scientific tools to maximize the good
done with the resources we give, seems more in tension with Christianity.26 The reason he gives for the second claim (that
is, that using the best available scientific tools to maximize the good done with the resources we give, seems more in tension
with Christianity) is that unlike (most) effective altruists, Christians attach high value to giving aimed at supporting local
churches. He argues that Many Christians give directly to their local church and/or to parachurch organizations without
thinking much about whether the outcomes of their giving are as good as they could be. He also observes that most funds
given to these churches and or parachuch organizations are not used to achieve typical Effective Altruist goals like improving
global health and alleviating the most severe poverty in the world.
Liberman states that since so much giving is religiously affiliated, and because there has been so little explicit
discussion within Christian communities about making giving more effective, Effective Altruist outreach to Christian
communities could be extremely fruitful. He therefore advocates that efforts should be put forward to the realization of this
collaboration.27
However, Liberman raises two potential stumbling blocks for Effective Altruist-Christian collaboration. First, he
says Christians cannot assess outcomes using a straightforward utilitarian calculus of the sort preferred by many Effective
Altruists. He observed that this problem is especially pressing for non-universalist Christians who believe in heaven and hell.
He argues that for them, the possibility of causing infinite bliss or avoiding infinite pain becomes a swamping consideration
that leads to morally perverse results when weighing utilities. Liberman therefore argues that Christians must adopt some
non-utilitarian standard of goodness that includes deontic side constraints on permissible human ends and acknowledges
non-human goods, such as the goodness of God.
The second stumbling block Liberman pointed out is that cause allocation is more difficult for a Christian Effective
Altruist than it is for a secular Effective Altruist, as the goods that Christians aim to support are not easily commensurable.
He asks how does one weigh the importance of alleviating human suffering against the importance of leading others to eternal
salvation, or the importance of worshipping an infinitely good God?28
Despite these obstacles enumerated by Liberman, it is arguable that Christianity and effective Altruism are more in agreement
than in disagreement. It has been argued that Christians are not only in agreement with effective Altruists in their demand to
give radically in quantity but also to give universally in scope, and to be generous not only to your near neighbors, but to
poor and needy people wherever they happen to be. The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25 – 37)—in which Jesus
answers the question “Who is my neighbor?” by telling the story of a cultural outsider who helps an injured man when the

An Evaluation of the Concept of Effective Altruism in Peter Singer 14811
www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org
members of his own group ignore him—is often used to support the idea that our obligation to do good is universal. A
contemporary Protestant theologian Eric Gregory notes:
Appeals to the Good Samaritan, taking up a Lucan emphasis on universalism and concern for the outsider, often
ground a strong egalitarian ethic (known as “agapism”). In many ways, agapism parallels the morally demanding views of a
consistent utilitarian like [Peter] Singer.29
Similarly a contemporary Catholic theologian Charles Camosy argues that Singer and the Roman Catholic Church
take similar stand in articulating our duties to the poor. Both assume that we are equally morally culpable for what we do
and what we fail to do. Moreover, both have a universal focus: Camosy cites the Good Samaritan and Peter Singer’s drowning
child analogy in tandem as narratives that make similar points about the obligation to help others without regard for their
proximity to you.30
In addition, to those who in arguing that Christianity cannot agree with effective Altuism because their giving is
mainly to church or parachurch organizations Cortines and Baumer has this to say
As we studied Scripture, we became increasingly convinced that this [reaching into the world as God calls us to]
means reaching out to help the poor and the marginalized. Helping our high-income church to construct a new wing or retreat
center is wonderful, but we became convinced that if we did this while ignoring the neediest in our society, we would be
entering some dangerous territory in the eyes of God.31 In short, there indeed appears to be significant overlap between
Effective Altruist and Christian conceptions of the obligation to give radically in both quantity and scope.
EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION
Effective altruism seems to be a reasonable ethical approach for people living in the most affluent countries. They may follow
it and sacrifice very little from their wealth, as their needs are satisfied and they do not benefit very much from additional
money. Crumbs from their tables are lunches for people living in extreme poverty. And indeed, most of the authors who
wrote on effective altruism had these people in affluent countries in mind. Peter Singer for instance in “Famine, Affluence
and Morality” writes as a way of stating the key point of his argument in the work “in what follows, I shall argue that the
way people in relatively affluent countries react to situations like that in Bengal cannot be justified; indeed, the whole way
we look at moral issues- our moral conceptual scheme- needs to be altered, and with it, the way of life that has been taken
for granted in our society.”32 The question that comes to mind immediately is, is the obligation of alleviating the suffering
of the poor in poor countries reserved for the affluent countries alone? Is it not possible that some people living in those poor
countries are living in affluence too?
It is (at least partially) based on this view of those in affluent countries helping those in poor countries that the
argument of universality in scope of giving argument is based. I contend that scope of the audience targeted by the arguments
of the effective altruists should at least be broadened to include the affluent in the poor countries.
Philosophers have criticized Effective Altruism but the critique most times focuses on difficulties typical for utilitarian ethics
or the probability of following ethics built from the point of view of an impartial observer. Williams for instance argued that
the reason that utilitarianism is incompatible with moral integrity is that it alienates people from what may matter most to
them: their projects, their relations with those they care about, and so on.

14812 Joseph Nnaemeka Chukwuma, Tobias Chukwuemeka Ozioko, Obiora Anichebe, Gabriel Chukwuebuka Otegbulu,
Charles Kenechukwu Okoro, George Ohabuenyi Abah*, Collins Ikenna Ugwu, Anthony Chukwudi Areji
Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
In answer to that Jeff McMahan in “Philosophical Critiques of Effective Altruism” argues that It does this because
it implies that their projects, commitments, attachments, and values matter no more in themselves, or from what Sidgwick
called ‘the point of view of the universe’, than those of other people. One’s own projects and attachments therefore cannot
have any priority or privileged role in the determination of how one ought to live or what one ought to do. He further stated
that accepting Williams thought, would be to surrender all that makes one’s life worth living.
There is also a doubt about the relationship between effective altruism and consumerism. It is possible to perceive
effective altruism with consumerists’ logic. As effective altruism grew on utilitarianism, motivation of the act is not important
as long as it does not affect the consequences. However, it is possible to treat donating to effective charity organizations as
another luxury service. Something that was never done before or something that makes us feel more trendy. Also, Singer
intentionally encourages donors to “sound a trumpet when we give to the poor” as then other people would follow. He
believes that we tend to do what others from our reference group do.33 The risk is that when Effective Altruism ceases to be
fashionable, the number of donations will decrease. However, even if Effective Altruism remains a part of consumerist logic,
for Utilitarians it is important that it does its job – some money that would otherwise be spend to satisfy the sophisticated
needs of people from affluent countries – has already been transferred to effective charities. In their view, the motivation for
donors does not change the fact that they give and the lives of people living in extreme conditions significantly changes.
In addition, there is a risk of turning an effective altruist into a machine for the redistribution of wealth – a means
rather than an end. This is something unacceptable to the followers of Kant, whose ideas are still very prominent in ethical
debates.
Kathryn Muyskens in her work, ‘The other half of effective altruism: selective asceticism’ agrees with the ideas,
central to effective altruism, that we have a duty to make the world a better place and that we should act on this principle by
applying our powers of reason so as to make our efforts as effective as possible. Muyskens, however, seeks to emphasize an
aspect of effective altruism that she believes has been unduly neglected: effective altruists should consider not only action,
but also inaction, as an effective method of achieving social change.
REFERENCES
1. Kraut, Richard, "Altruism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/altruism/>.
2. Jakub Synowiec, Ethics for everyday heroes – from Utilitarianism to Effective Altruism, Ethics & Bioethics (in Central
Europe), 2016, 6 (3–4), 147–156
3. Jakub Synowiec, Ethics for everyday heroes – from Utilitarianism to Effective Altruism, Ethics & Bioethics (in Central
Europe), 2016, 6 (3–4), 147–156
4. SINGER, P. (2000): Writings on an Ethical Life. New York: HarperCollins.
5. Jakub Synowiec, Ethics for everyday heroes – from Utilitarianism to Effective Altruism, Ethics & Bioethics (in Central
Europe), 2016, 6 (3–4), 147–156
6. Jakub Synowiec, Ethics for everyday heroes – from Utilitarianism to Effective Altruism, Ethics & Bioethics (in Central
Europe), 2016, 6 (3–4), 147–156
7. Singer developed this argument in his other writings as he got new insights from questions raised by his students and critics
and from the changing times. His 2009 book The book The Live You Can Save deals extensively on this.

An Evaluation of the Concept of Effective Altruism in Peter Singer 14813
www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org
8. Singer, Peter The life you can save : acting now to end world poverty, United States by Random House, an imprint of The
Random House Publishing Group, 2009
9. SINGER, P. (1972): Famine, Affluence and Morality. In: Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(3), pp. 229–243.
10. (MacAskill, William (2017) "Effective Altruism: Introduction,"Essays in Philosophy: Vol. 18: Iss. 1, Article 1.
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.7710/1526-0569.1580)
11. MACASKILL, W. (2015b): What is Effective Altruism. In: R. Carey (ed.): The Effective Altruism Handbook. Oxford: Centre
for Effective Altruism, pp. 11–13.
12. SINGER, P. (2015, 118): The Most Good You Can do New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
13. MacAskill, William (2017) "Effective Altruism: Introduction,"Essays in Philosophy: Vol. 18: Iss. 1, Article 1.
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.7710/1526-0569.1580
14. MACASKILL, W. (2015b): What is Effective Altruism. In: R. Carey (ed.): The Effective Altruism Handbook. Oxford: Centre
for Effective Altruism, pp. 11–13.
15. MUEHLHAUSER, L. (2015): Four Focus Areas of Effective Altruism. In: R. Carey (ed.): The Effective Altruism Handbook.
Oxford: Centre for Effective Altruism, pp. 99–106.
16. MACASKILL, W. (2015a): Doing Good Better London: Guardian books.; SINGER, P. (2015, 118): The Most Good You Can
do New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
17. MACASKILL, W. (2015a pp. 62–64): Doing Good Better London: Guardian books
18. MACASKILL, W. (2015a p 13): Doing Good Better London: Guardian books
19. BOSTROM, N. (2013): Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority. In: Global Policy, 4(1), pp. 15–31
20. Singer, Peter. ( 2015, 114, 115) The Most Good You Can Do. How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living
Ethically. New Haven: Yale University Press.
21. Singer, Peter. ( 2015, 111) The Most Good You Can Do. How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
22. Paul IV (1967) Populorum progressio: Encyclical of Pope Paul VI on the development of peoples. Available at:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_26031967_populorum.html
23. Tierney, B. (1997) The idea of natural rights: Studies on natural rights, natural law and church law: 11501625. Atlanta, GA:
Scholars Press, 380, 70
24. Liberman, Alida (2017) "Effective altruism and Christianity: possibilities for productive collaboration,"Essays in Philosophy:
Vol. 18: Iss. 1, Article 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.7710/1526-0569.1576
25. White, C.E. (2016) “What Wesley practiced and preached about money.” Christianity Today. Available at:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/1987/winter/87l1027.html.
26. MacAskill, William (2017) "Effective Altruism: Introduction,"Essays in Philosophy: Vol. 18: Iss. 1, Article 1.
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.7710/1526-0569.1580
27. Liberman, Alida (2017) "Effective altruism and Christianity: possibilities for productive collaboration,"Essays in Philosophy:
Vol. 18: Iss. 1, Article 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.7710/1526-0569.1576

14814 Joseph Nnaemeka Chukwuma, Tobias Chukwuemeka Ozioko, Obiora Anichebe, Gabriel Chukwuebuka Otegbulu,
Charles Kenechukwu Okoro, George Ohabuenyi Abah*, Collins Ikenna Ugwu, Anthony Chukwudi Areji
Impact Factor (JCC): 8.8746 SCOPUS Indexed Journal NAAS Rating: 3.11
28. Liberman, Alida (2017) "Effective altruism and Christianity: possibilities for productive collaboration,"Essays in Philosophy:
Vol. 18: Iss. 1, Article 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.7710/1526-0569.1576
29. Gregory, E. (2008) “Agape and special relations in a global economy: Theological sources.” In Hicks, D.A. and Valeri, M.
(eds.) Global neighbours: Christian Faith and moral obligation in today’s economy. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 24–25.
30. Camosy, C.C. (2012) Peter Singer and Christian ethics: Beyond polarization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139043304, 140
31. Baumer, G. and Cortines, J. (2016) God and money: How we discovered true riches at Harvard business school. Carson, CA:
Rose Publishing, 185.
32. SINGER, P. (1972): Famine, Affluence and Morality. In: Philosophy and Public Affairs
33. Singer, Peter, The life you can save : Acting Now to End World Poverty, United States by Random House, an imprint of The
Random House Publishing Group, 2009 pp. 64– 66.
34. Baumer, G. and Cortines, J. God and Money: How we Discovered True Riches at Harvard business school. Carson, CA: Rose
Publishing, 2016.
35. BOSTROM, N.: Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority. In: Global Policy, 2013.
36. Camosy, C.C. Peter Singer and Christian ethics: Beyond polarization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139043304, 2012.
37. Gregory, E. “Agape and special relations in a global economy: Theological sources.” In Hicks, D.A. and Valeri, M. (eds.)
Global Neighbours: Christian Faith and Moral Obligation in Today’s Economy. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008.
38. Jakub Synowiec, Ethics for everyday heroes – from Utilitarianism to Effective Altruism, Ethics & Bioethics in Central Europe,
2016.
39. Kraut, Richard, "Altruism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/altruism/>. (Spring 2018 Edition)
40. Liberman, Alida "Effective Altruism and Christianity: Possibilities for Productive Collaboration,"Essays in Philosophy: Vol.
18: Iss. 1, Article 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.7710/1526-0569.1576, 2017.
41. MacAskill, William "Effective Altruism: Introduction,"Essays in Philosophy: Vol. 18: Iss. 1, Article 1. http://dx.doi.org/
10.7710/1526-0569.1580), 2017.
42. Macaskill, W. What is Effective Altruism. In: R. Carey (ed.): The Effective Altruism Handbook. Oxford: Centre for Effective
Altruism, 2015.
43. Macaskill, W. Doing Good Better London: Guardian books.; SINGER, P. (2015, 118): The Most Good You Can do New
Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2015.
44. Muehlhauser, L. Four Focus Areas of Effective Altruism. In: R. Carey (ed.): The Effective Altruism Handbook. Oxford: Centre
for Effective Altruism, 2015.
45. Paul IV, Populorum progressio: Encyclical of Pope Paul VI on the Development of Peoples. Available at:
http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_26031967_populorum.html 1967.
46. Singer, Peter, Writings on an Ethical Life. New York: HarperCollins, 2000.
47. Singer, Peter, The life you can save : Acting Now to End World Poverty, United States by Random House, an imprint of The
Random House Publishing Group, 2009.

An Evaluation of the Concept of Effective Altruism in Peter Singer 14815
www.tjprc.org SCOPUS Indexed Journal editor@tjprc.org
48. Singer, Peter, Famine, Affluence and Morality. In: Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1972.
49. Singer, Peter, The Most Good You Can do New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2015.
50. Tierney, B. The Idea of Natural Rights: Studies on Natural Rights, Natural Law and Church Law: 11501625. Atlanta, GA:
Scholars Press, 1997.
51. White, C.E. “What Wesley Practiced and Preached About Money.” Christianity Today. Available at:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/1987/winter/87l1027.html. 2016.