When discussing morality, it's common—and tempting—to casually label certain people as "better" or "worse." Effective Altruism (EA), a movement emphasizing measurable, impactful altruism, frequently prompts such judgments. But careful consideration offers valuable philosophical insights into how we should evaluate goodness.
1. Clarify Your Basis of Judgment
Morality is inherently conditional. When you call someone "good" or "better," clarify explicitly: Are you judging them by your own moral standards (internal), or by the standards they've chosen and openly professed (external)? Conflating these two leads to ethical confusion and misunderstanding.
For example, journalist and effective altruist Kelsey Piper commits publicly to donating around 40-50% of her income to highly effective global health interventions. Judged externally—by her own chosen standards—her actions are exemplary. Internally, by your own standards, you may either strongly agree or differ significantly. Explicitly distinguishing these two modes of judgment ensures clear and meaningful moral discussion.
2. Goodness Is Contextual, Not Absolute
Recognize explicitly that there is no universal moral standard. Effective altruists embody virtues such as rationality, generosity, consistency, and measurable impact—virtues that are widely respected but not universally prioritized. Admiring these virtues doesn't imply that effective altruists are universally superior beings. Goodness depends entirely on explicitly stated values, goals, and contexts.
3. Integrity and Authenticity Are Key Virtues
Kelsey's actions demonstrate admirable integrity and authenticity. She consciously chooses an ethical framework and lives consistently within it, transparently aligning her stated values and concrete actions. This authenticity deserves admiration across virtually any ethical system that values coherence and self-awareness.
4. Transparency vs. Privacy: A Philosophical Choice
Another critical lesson from EA is about transparency. Effective altruists often prefer public giving, arguing transparency encourages broader collective impact and leverages social norms. However, maintaining privacy around charitable acts can also reflect deeply held values: humility, authenticity, and a desire to avoid performative signaling.
Both strategies come with trade-offs. Neither transparency nor privacy is inherently superior. Instead, each reflects underlying philosophical priorities: transparency leverages community influence, while privacy safeguards personal authenticity. Choosing between these reveals as much about the chooser as about the ethical act itself.
5. Common Ground Across Ethical Frameworks
Even if one doesn't fully endorse EA, acknowledging its commendable traits (clarity of purpose, rationality, meaningful impact) fosters mutual respect across different value systems. Such acknowledgment promotes deeper philosophical understanding and cooperative alignment around shared virtues, even if ultimate goals differ.
6. Beware Implicit Objective Moralizing
Casually asserting moral superiority ("they're better people") can implicitly assume an objective morality—an assumption fraught with philosophical problems. Conditionalism demands rigorous clarity: always state or clarify conditions underlying moral judgments. Avoid implying universal moral truths where none exist.
Conclusion:
Reflecting carefully on Effective Altruism helps clarify moral discussions, emphasizing authenticity and integrity as virtues universally worth considering. Genuine ethical reflection requires explicit acknowledgment of context and clarity of judgment. This approach enriches our philosophical understanding and encourages thoughtful, meaningful ethical choices in everyday life.