Day: The institutional criticism of effective altruism is that Peter Singer’s solution to global poverty is too individualistic, essentially leaves power at bay, and does not deal with the root causes of any of these problems. The real problems are structural. They relate to the way society is organized, power imbalances, things like corruption and the lack of accountability for politicians. Like effective philanthropists, donating money is like putting a plaster on a wound. It doesn’t actually deal with the causes of the injury. Effective philanthropists have various responses to this, but I think the most compelling response is this. They’ll say, “Well, we believe we should do the best we can. If you can convince us that working for structural change – for example, lobbying politicians or supporting organizations trying to root out corruption – is the most effective use of our resources, then we have no ideological commitment to donating through charity.” So it’s not a difference about ideology or morality, it’s a practical and empirical difference about what they think is the most effective way to bring about change.
km: In its early days the movement appeared to be quite apolitical in its mission. It is now becoming impossible to keep philanthropy separate from politics. How might effective altruism change in response to this new political landscape?
Day: You are right that politics has become increasingly polarized. I’m not an expert on why this happened, but I think it happened in the United States to a greater extent than in any other Western democracy. The implications of EA are entirely practical. Their ultimate goal is not to bring any particular party to power. Their ultimate objective is clearly to distribute resources in a way that effectively improves people’s lives. Insofar as alliance with a particular political party undermines that objective, it would obviously be better for them to step away from party politics. Already they are not openly partisan political. Surveys of people who have signed up to Effective Altruism show that they are, as you might expect, on the progressive side, but vary from very centrist to moderately progressive… in European terms, that might be very left-wing. [in] American terms. They are not of a political ideology, and they would probably want to distance themselves from the field of politics simply because it is so polarized. If you’re affiliated with one party or the other, you alienate 50 percent of the American population.