It seems that the drive for and exercise of philanthropy remains constant across ages, but gets anchored in the worldview of the time and is driven by different motives:
- Greeks, giving to the community yes but also to showcase their wealth etc.
- monotheistic religions see it as giving back but also as a duty towards God
- Enlightenment and other views see it as an act of justice which complements the coercive taxation rules, also some duty in there
- and nowadays, it has been dressed in the cloak of science with effective altruism
So it seems that philanthropy is something people do, and justify it according to their particular view of life. Given that, we can highlight this aspect, and use it as an opportunity to include some questions to consider when thinking about philanthropy:
- if religion/justice = ethical theory of duty
- if effective altruism => consequentialism
- if to cultivate a good character => virtue ethics, by way of example
This way, it can be an indirect invitation to ask the question why philanthropy, but give some frameworks to anchor it in a more thoughtful way. In other words, have them question things but with some scaffolding so as it doesn’t seem like it’s a criticism of philanthropy just because, but rather of the different manifestations, especially when not properly thought through.
Longtermism does sound a lot like any other religion. Effective Altruism is unfalsifiable because to measure the effects of your actions today you will need to look at future consequences. This in turn can be explained and rationalized away after the fact. So it’s based on a belief and an assumption that cannot be verified: that reason and evidence can help us maximize the good for the greatest number of people when we work on large-scale, tractable, and ignored causes.
This sounds a lot like Communism. In its true form, it will be glorious, solving all forms of class struggle. We will be liberated. But only when it is established in its true form, in the future.
There’s also the knowledge and predictability problem. Hayek would come in handy here. They also moralize all kinds of issues, and disregard the political, social, economic, and cultural context.
This echoes part of the argument I made about sanctions. By assuming you’re doing the right things, you might end up causing collateral damage. You also disregard the complexity of these issues.
For a movement that prides itself on making data-driven and science-backed decisions, their arguments are grounded by a philosophical worldview that is simply belief-driven. It is, again, unfalsifiable.
More to come on this one.