Is effective altruism too cold and calculating?

by Josh Parikh.

A common criticism of effective altruism is that it is too “cold and calculating”. Part of this comes from its emphasis on reason and evidence when making moral decisions. This is sometimes seen as downplaying important values such as empathy and care; or separately, as a failure to trust in God’s control, by trying to work out how to do more good, rather than leaving all the results to God.

This criticism of effective altruism is understandable, but ultimately unfair. Moral action includes both ultimate goals which we are trying to achieve, and decision-making methods to help us get there. For example, if you were driving from your home to the Houses of Parliament you might use a map or a Satnav. The map and the Satnav are not the end goal: they are of no use if you don’t have a destination. But they are utterly essential in helping you to get to Parliament. In morality, we might have have numerous goals, such as wellbeing, virtue, and reduced suffering. These are things which God, and therefore we, should care about achieving. However the way we get there involves different methods, from empathy, to reason, to calculation: God has given us brains, feelings and tools to help us live moral lives.

Effective altruism includes both ultimate aims and decision-making procedures: “using reason and evidence to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible, and taking action on that basis.” People often focus on the ultimate aim, which is benefiting others as much as possible, and miss that this also contains a way of deciding what to do, which is using reason and evidence. So are Effective Altruists right about this, or are they completely off the mark?

There are good reasons to think that Christians should care about using reason and evidence when we are trying to do good. Firstly, there are numerous explicit teachings in favour of reason and evidence. Romans 12:2 implores us to not “conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.” The concentration on renewing the mind, leaving us with improved reasoning capacity, is linked to the discernment of God’s “good, pleasing and perfect” will, demonstrating the link between a sharp mind and ethical practice. Equally relevant is how Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for failing to “read the signs of the times” (Matthew 16:3), suggesting that an attentiveness to current events and their implications might reveal significant truths, and that a failure to do so is morally culpable.

Secondly, the use of reason and evidence is demonstrated in Biblical stories. King Solomon uses a crafty trick to find out who is the real mother of a child. By bringing a sword out, and giving an order to “cut the living child in two and give half to one and half to the other” (1 Kings 3:25), Solomon finds out which mother really cares for the child by the evidence of their reactions, and so reunites them. The brilliance of the trap leads Israel to “realized that God had given him wisdom to judge fairly” (1 Kings 3:28). Or take Joseph- in conversation with the Pharaoh, he suggests that a “discerning and wise man” (Genesis 41:33) ought to be in charge of Egypt, devising a careful plan of grain collection so that “the country may not be ruined by famine” (Genesis 41:36). Executing this plan means that “there was famine in all the other lands, but in the whole land of Egypt there was food” (Genesis 41:54). Using reason and evidence is interwoven into the narrative to enable better decision-making and results.

And finally, reason and evidence work. We use accurate maps, and throw out false ones, not just because there is precedent for it, but because they are more likely to get us to our destination. In healthcare, evidence-based medicine is a fairly uncontested approach, and it would be uncomfortable and perhaps absurd to participate in discussion with those who dismiss the role of evidence and reason in discerning proper medical practice. And yet this was not always the case, for as Bernadette Young notes, “the fear of doctors that ‘cook-book medicine’ would undermine their ability to exercise clinical judgment, and 'result in reducing the autonomy of the doctor/patient relationship’” has been a real fear in the past. We dismiss this criticism at bottom because evidence-based medicine works and provides extraordinary benefits, from vaccines to life-saving operations. So when evidence and reason can help provide enormous benefits, from better philanthropic decisions to improved career choices, we should pay attention and use them to demonstrate our true love for others.

Far from downplaying reason and evidence, we must instead restore them to their rightful place. We should make moral decisions based on better evidence and reasons, using our God-given ‘renewed minds’. We should be listening to people and organisations which have thought carefully about how to effectively create lasting impact when giving to charity or choosing our career. We should prioritise pursuing truth, finding out what needs to be done and clarifying our moral duties when there is uncertainty. Let us stop worrying about being too cold and calculating, instead, bringing back reason and evidence as crucial aspects of moral decision-making, so that we might help others more.