"Effective Altruism is an Intellectual Scam"

Bloomberg editorial columnist rips EA to shreds

I have been writing about the current trial of crypto’s “golden boy” Sam Bankman-Fried, who is facing multiple criminal fraud charges. Because the failed founder was an acolyte of the cult philosophy of effective altruism, many commentators are taking the opportunity to chime in about this aspect of Bankman-Fried’s life.

As a co-author of an entire book critiquing EA and the animal welfare / vegan movements, I was thrilled to read an article published by Bloomberg entitled, “Effective Altruism Is as Bankrupt as Sam Bankman-Fried’s FTX” and referring to EA as an “intellectual scam".

In the wake of the news of Bankman-Fried’s arrest, many in the EA world have maintained that we should not “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. While they acknowledge Bankman-Fried’s wrongdoings, most refuse to see the obvious connections to EA. This post to the Effective Altruism Forum even suggests recruiting additional “Ultra High Net Worth” donors, with Jeff Bezos as the prime example. The fact that Bezos represents everything wrong with capitalism isn’t of any concern. It’s this “ends justify the means” approach that represents much of the problem with EA.

Meanwhile, the animal welfare funder Open Philanthropy swooped in last November to offer to make up grants to those charities who lost funds in the wake of the FTX bankruptcy. Bankman-Fried and his FTX Future Fund was a major donor to numerous organizations, including the Good Food Institute, which (as I wrote about in January) refused to return the dirty money even while others did the right thing.

But while the EA stalwarts are doing damage control, it’s time to reflect more broadly on a highly questionable philosophy of funders that is causing all sort of harm. Here is how Bloomberg’s Clive Cook sees it:

From a moral-philosophical point of view, what’s interesting is not whether Bankman-Fried was acting in good faith or knew what he was doing. What’s interesting is whether Effective Altruists could do what he is accused of doing and still be in the right so long as they used the proceeds to advance human happiness. The movement’s answer to this question seems to be: No, cheating people is obviously wrong. Most sane people would agree. The problem with this answer is that it shows Effective Altruism to be something of an intellectual scam.

This is important because Bankman-Fried was encouraged to pursue the EA concept of making as much money as possible in order to donate to charity aka “earn to give”. Of course, that’s not exactly what he did; not only did he misappropriate other people’s billions of dollars, he apparently spent much of it lavishly. So much so, even others at the company also motivated by EA were really bothered by the excesses.

To be fair, some in EA say they are reflecting on all of this. But are they really?

Cook doesn’t believe those in EA who claim to now be disavowing themselves of Bankman-Fried. For example, the founder of GiveWell (the partner org to Open Philanthropy), Holden Karnofsky, has been among a few EA leaders attempting to backtrack, somewhat. But the clues were there and EA leaders were even warned before the public all of FTX.

Indeed, in an interview at Vox (a media outlet that itself receives EA funding, including from Bankman-Fried), Karnofsky even admits to knowing at least some of what was happening at FTX while it was still going on:

There were things that made me say … I certainly see some reasons that one could be concerned, that one could imagine low-integrity behavior, less than honest and scrupulous behavior. At the same time, I just don’t think I knew anything that rose to the level of expecting what happened to happen or really being in a position to go around denouncing him. Now it feels a little bit different in hindsight. And some of that does feel regrettable in hindsight.

“Regrettable in hindsight” is quite an understatement.

Bloomberg’s Cook is not buying the regrets because to take EA principles to their logical conclusion means that even Bankman-Fried’s crimes were justified. He explains the arrogance of EA thinking:

It deems ordinary ways of doing good timid and unprincipled. … Moral intuitions that tell us there’s more to being good than doing math are made to fit or simply discarded. Effective Altruism has no time for moral dilemmas or disagreement about values.

That’s a huge problem. We need to make time and reexamine all of the funding currently flowing into animal welfare and vegan causes that stem from the bankrupt philosophy of effective altruism.