Effective Altruism is No Excuse for Fraud

Sam Bankman-Fried found guilty on all criminal fraud counts

It didn’t take long for the jury long to find crypto’s golden boy guilty of all seven criminal fraud allegations. Sam Bankman-Fried was a follower of effective altruism, a funding concept with a cult-like following in vegan circles.

I have been following the trial and verdict closely for how the media is picking up on the connections to EA and its highly questionable tenets.

Bankman-Fried’s allegiance to EA came up several times during the trial, which seems unfortunate for EA followers. According to the Guardian:

Bankman-Fried subscribed to a philosophy known as “effective altruism”, which posits that getting rich with an eye toward donating money in the most efficient way possible is a moral good. [Co-worker Caroline] Ellison said on the stand that her ex-boyfriend’s particular brand of ethics made it easier for her to justify lying and cheating their customers. Public perception of the movement has declined in the wake of the accusations against the one-time mogul, and its biggest boosters have backed off.

The ends rarely justify unethical means, and in this case, illegal means. Prosecutors in the case wanted to make sure jurors were not confused on this point.

An article published by Fortune entitled, “Sam Bankman-Fried prosecutors want to make sure jurors know effective altruism is no defense for fraud”, explains how prosecutors were unimpressed with Bankman-Fried’s attempt to argue his decisions were "motivated by a desire to do good in the world”. Prosecutors countered that, "Any such arguments are not a defense to fraud," describing effective altruism as an "idiosyncratic philosophy about the morality of lying and stealing."

Another post-verdict analysis came to the conclusion that Bankman-Fried is both an “altruist and a crook”. In considering whether we should consider him a “latter day Robin Hood”, the author points out Bankman-Fried failed that test many times:

Even as Bankman-Fried was giving away millions, he benefited from the billions he was stealing. During his fifteen minutes of fame, he got to lecture Congress, hobnob with superstar athletes like Tom Brady and Steph Curry, and live in a custom-designed multi-million-dollar beachfront compound in the Bahamas. That hardly looks like the life of a philanthropic ascetic.

Hardly.

The author goes onto to rip into the hypocrisy of EA’s philosophy:

Seen through this lens, the lying, cheating, and stealing were not a bug in the operations of FTX and Alameda; they were a feature; the only bug was getting caught, because much of the money Bankman-Fried gave away might now be clawed back and, from his prison cell, he will be a very ineffective altruist.

Very ineffective.

Meanwhile we are not hearing a peep out of the vegan world. Where are the funders on all of this? It’s past time for a rethinking of applying EA cult-like ideas to the vegan and animal welfare worlds. Who is going to step up?