School #190

Effective Altruism

Peter Singer, Toby Ord, William MacAskill, Holden Karnofsky

Effective Altruism is the philosophical and practical movement that seeks to use evidence and careful reasoning to do the most good possible with one's resources, treating beneficence as a quantitative problem of maximisation under constraint. Its philosophical foundation is Peter Singer's essay 'Famine, Affluence, and Morality' (1972), which argued that if we can prevent serious harm at little cost to ourselves we are morally required to do so regardless of distance, and his later 'The Life You Can Save' (2009) and 'The Most Good You Can Do' (2015). The movement emerged organisationally in the late 2000s around Oxford-based philosophers including Toby Ord (founder of Giving What We Can, 2009) and William MacAskill, whose 'Doing Good Better' (2015) provided its popular manifesto, and around evaluator organisations such as GiveWell. Ord's 'The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity' (2020) and MacAskill's 'What We Owe the Future' (2022) extended the framework into longtermism — the view that positively influencing the long-run future is a key moral priority of our time. The movement has directed substantial philanthropic resources toward global health interventions (anti-malarial nets, deworming, direct cash transfers), animal welfare, biosecurity, and AI alignment research. The post-2022 reputational crisis surrounding the FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried, a high-profile EA-aligned donor convicted of fraud, has provoked extensive internal reckoning over governance, epistemic culture, and the relation between maximising consequentialism and ordinary moral constraints.

Worldview

The effective altruist inhabits a world in which suffering is enormous, resources are finite, and the difference between mediocre and excellent charitable interventions can be two or three orders of magnitude in lives saved per dollar. The fundamental orientation is one of impartial, quantitative beneficence: take seriously the equal moral weight of every sentient being, and then think hard about how to convert your scarce resources into the most good. The longtermist extension adds a temporal dimension — the trillions of potential future persons whose existence depends on what humanity does in the coming centuries — and a corresponding focus on existential risks from engineered pandemics, misaligned artificial intelligence, and great-power conflict. The framework classifies this as None: effective altruism is a secular and broadly consequentialist tradition that locates moral motivation in rational concern for sentient welfare and grants no role to cosmic-ordering principles, personal deities, or spirit-relational powers. The framework reads this as Reason: moral authority rests on careful argument, empirical evidence, and expected-value calculation rather than on revelation, tradition, or unmediated experience, though the post-FTX reckoning has produced a substantial internal debate over whether such reasoning needs to be constrained by widely shared moral intuitions about honesty, integrity, and side-constraints on harming others.

Moral Implications

EA ethics is broadly impartial consequentialism: the right action maximises expected aggregate welfare, with all sentient beings counting in proportion to their capacity to experience well-being. This generates strong demands of giving (Ord and many other EAs pledge at least ten percent of lifetime income), of career choice (the 80,000 Hours organisation advises on high-impact careers), and of cause prioritisation (concentrate resources on interventions where the marginal dollar does most good). The movement has been criticised for moral overdemandingness, for naïveté about institutional and political context, for its willingness to override ordinary moral intuitions in the name of expected-value calculation, and — after the FTX collapse — for an epistemic culture that rationalised significant ethical failures by influential members.

Practical Implications

EA-aligned funding has reshaped parts of global health philanthropy (the Against Malaria Foundation, GiveDirectly), animal welfare (corporate cage-free campaigns), biosecurity policy, and AI safety research, redirecting on the order of tens of billions of dollars over the past decade. The 80,000 Hours career-advisory project has influenced a generation of graduates toward high-impact work in policy, research, and operations. The movement's analytical templates — cost-effectiveness in DALYs averted, probabilistic forecasting, explicit cause prioritisation — have diffused well beyond its self-identified membership. Its post-2022 crisis has triggered substantial governance reforms, the restructuring of leadership institutions, and a renewed argument about whether the movement can sustain ambitious longtermist projects without recreating the failure modes that discredited its most visible donor.

I. Time

Time is substantival, one-dimensional, linear, continuous, and non-deterministic. The longtermist branch of EA treats time as potentially extending across millions or billions of years of future human and post-human existence, and weights the well-being of future persons equally with that of present persons; the existential-risk literature (Ord, Nick Bostrom's 'Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority', 2013) draws the policy implications. Time freedom is non-deterministic: humanity's long-run trajectory is open, and the present generation occupies a uniquely high-leverage 'hinge of history' in which catastrophic risks must be navigated.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Grain: Continuous Freedom: Non-Deterministic Traversability: Linear Dimensionality: One Direction: Uni-directional

II. Space

Space is substantival, three-dimensional, flat, and local in the everyday sense, but EA's longtermist horizon takes the relevant spatial scale to be infinite — the accessible universe over astronomical futures, in which technologically mature civilisation might expand. Spatial distance carries no intrinsic moral weight: a child dying of malaria in sub-Saharan Africa has the same claim on the donor in San Francisco as a child next door. The flatness of moral space is one of the movement's most distinctive commitments.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Curvature: Flat Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

III. Matter

Matter is substantival, conserved, three-dimensional, and local. The longtermist literature treats the universe's available matter and energy as the resource base for possible future flourishing, occasionally invoking the astronomical scale at which intelligent action might eventually operate. In ordinary EA work the material world is taken for granted as the standard scientific physical world within which interventions are designed and evaluated.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

IV. Observer

The effective altruist is an embodied, finite, broadly impartial agent who treats her moral situation as a decision problem under uncertainty. Knowledge is mediated and partial: she relies heavily on cost-effectiveness analysis, randomised controlled trials, expert elicitation, and explicit probabilistic forecasting to identify interventions whose expected impact is large. Agency is active and quantitatively self-aware: career choice, donation strategy, and research direction are all decisions to be optimised. Plural observers populate the moral universe — every sentient being, present and future, counts equally in principle — and the species, including its possible descendants over astronomical timescales, is the relevant frame of reference. The observer is sceptical of moral intuitions when they conflict with explicit expected-value reasoning, though the post-FTX debate has pushed many in the movement to take ordinary moral constraints more seriously.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Extent of Knowledge: Mediated Retainment of Knowledge: Partial Physicality: Embodied Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: None Moral Authority: Reason Theological Method: N/A

V. Energy

Energy is substantival, finite, conserved, and irreversibly dispersible in the standard physical sense. The movement takes its physics from contemporary science without distinctive theoretical modification. In the longtermist register, the eventual heat-death of the universe and the available negentropy of the accessible cosmos figure as outer limits on the scale of possible future value, but for practical present-day work energy considerations enter chiefly through climate policy and decarbonisation as instances of existential or catastrophic risk reduction.

Attributes
Extent: Finite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible

VI. Information

Information is emergent and conserved at the social scale: EA institutions (GiveWell, Open Philanthropy, the Forethought Foundation, 80,000 Hours) constitute a self-conscious epistemic infrastructure dedicated to producing, refining, and disseminating evaluations of charitable interventions and global priorities. The movement places unusual weight on forecasting accuracy, calibration, and the public updating of beliefs. Personal informational conservation is denied: the individual does not survive death, but the longtermist strand of the movement places extraordinary moral weight on informational continuity at the species scale — on the preservation of the human (and possibly post-human) civilisational project across deep time.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Emergent Cosmic Conservation: Conserved Personal Conservation: Non-conserved Granularity: Continuous
← #189 Marxism All Schools #191 Mahayana Buddhism →

Works that name Effective Altruism in their embodiments

Foundational texts that draw on this school, with each work's declared weight.

6%
Practical Ethics (Mid)
Peter Singer · 1979 (1st ed.), 1993 (2nd ed.), 2011 (3rd ed.)
6%
How Are We to Live? (Mid)
Peter Singer · 1993
6%
The Expanding Circle (Mid)
Peter Singer · 1981 (1st ed.), 2011 (2nd ed.)
6%
The Life You Can Save (Late)
Peter Singer · 2009 (1st ed.), 2019 (10th anniversary ed.)
6%
Anthropic Bias (Early)
Nick Bostrom · 2002
6%
Global Catastrophic Risks (Mid)
Nick Bostrom · 2008
6%
The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time (Early)
Stephen Hawking · 1973
6%
The Universe in a Nutshell (Mid)
Stephen Hawking · 2001
6%
The Grand Design (Late)
Stephen Hawking · 2010
6%
Brief Answers to the Big Questions (Late)
Stephen Hawking · 2018 (posthumous)
6%
Deep Utopia (Late)
Nick Bostrom · 2024

How Effective Altruism resolves each dilemma

57 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 11 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The heat death of the universe — entropy maxed out, no further work possible — is among the more sobering implications of mainstream physics. Whether it is structurally inescapable depends on what kind of finitude the cosmos has.
Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed.
On this view, the cosmos has neither a temporal horizon nor a material exhaustion point. The framing of running out presupposes bounds that the cosmos doesn't have. Energy gradients perpetuate; new configurations emerge; the categories that make heat-death scary don't apply at the cosmic scale.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing. (47%) · Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. (26%) · The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Whether we can grow our way out of resource constraints — or whether the cosmos sets limits the economy ultimately must obey — depends on what kind of finitude matter has.
Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering.
On this view, matter and time are both unbounded at the largest scales. Terrestrial resource limits are real engineering and political constraints but not metaphysical ones; the cosmos can in principle support whatever expansion intelligence is capable of.
Roads not taken Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time. (47%) · The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. (26%) · Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
If we owe future people a habitable planet and the material means to flourish, and the cosmos is bounded in ways that make those obligations impossible at some scale, the obligation and the possibility come apart. Where they come apart turns on what kind of finitude we live in.
Both time and matter are unbounded; we cannot in principle owe more than is possible.
On this view, the cosmos has the resources to support whatever flourishing future generations are capable of, given sufficient time and intelligence. The impossibility concern is misplaced; the real questions are about trajectories and choices, not about resource ceilings.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide. (47%) · The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on. (26%) · The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it. (12%)
6 mainstream positions

Matter · 7 dilemmas · 4 distinctive

What stuff is — fundamental, relational, or appearance.

Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree (32/202)
What is money?
The question of what money is — a measured store of real value, an agreed-on practice, a relational ledger of debts, or just a name we apply to many different things — sits behind every argument about inflation, cryptocurrency, debt, and the state.
Money is a social practice — its content is what we make it.
On this view, money is exactly what societies do that performs the monetary functions. There is no fact about whether something is 'really' money beyond whether it is used as money. A community that decides shell beads or carbon credits or proof-of-work hashes count as …
Roads not taken Money is a real institution with intrinsic features. (54%) · Money is the ledger of obligations among real people. (15%) · “Money” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal. (8%)
Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree (32/202)
What is a nation?
Whether a nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character, a constructed legal-political artifact, a web of kinship and shared history, an imagined community, or a conventional partition of a deeper unity — these are real ontological positions with sharply different political downstream.
A nation is a constructed polity — a project, not a discovery.
On this view, nations are made: by treaties, by wars, by deliberate institution-building, by the slow work of collective practice. There is nothing intrinsic about a national kind; what exists is the practice. What we owe the nation is what we owe any institution we …
Roads not taken A nation is a real moral community with intrinsic character. (54%) · A nation is the web of kinship, ancestry, and shared land that hosts a people. (15%) · “Nation” names a family of practices imaginatively held together. (8%)
Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree (32/202)
What makes someone male or female?
Whether sex is a real biological kind, a constructed social category, a relational identity, a label applied to varied phenomena, or a conventional distinction within a deeper unity is the ontological question the contemporary dispute about gender is mostly about.
Gender is constructed; what counts as male or female reflects practice.
On this view, while biological features exist, what they socially mean — what counts as a man or a woman, what roles attach, how the categories are policed and revised — is the work of social practice. The categories are real but constructed; revising them …
Roads not taken Sex is a real biological kind with given content. (54%) · Sex and gender are constituted by relations of recognition. (15%) · “Male” and “female” are family-resemblance terms — no single essence. (8%)
Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree (32/202)
Should we edit the human germline?
Whether human nature is a given biological kind, a constructed category, a relational achievement, a family-resemblance cluster, or a conventional distinction within deeper unity is the ontological question the policy debate over heritable gene editing is mostly about.
The categories we count as 'human' are emergent from practice; germline editing is a practice-revision like any other.
On this view, biological facts about the genome exist, but what we count as 'human nature' is downstream of practice. The germline is one more thing humans now have technical access to; the question is not whether the practice transgresses an essence but whether the …
Roads not taken Human nature is a real biological kind given by reproductive biology or by creation; editing the germline transgresses what is given. (54%) · Personhood is constituted by relations of descent and kinship; germline editing reshapes the relational fabric. (15%) · 'Human nature' is a cluster term without a single essence; the editing question is empirical, not metaphysical. (8%)
3 mainstream positions

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 4 distinctive

Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.

Distinctive · only 11% of schools agree (22/202)
Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
Different traditions take fundamentally different things to be the basic moral-political unit.
The species or biosphere is the moral primary.
The biological species, or the wider community of sentient life, is the moral unit.
Roads not taken The discrete person is the moral primary. (40%) · The community of persons is the moral primary. (28%) · The cosmic-religious order is the moral primary. (14%)
Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree (32/202)
When does a person begin?
The political question of abortion sits atop an older ontological one: at what point does there exist a someone — a being with moral standing — rather than merely the materials from which one will form?
A person comes into being gradually, as the capacities of a mind develop.
On this view, personhood is not a status conferred at a moment but a property of beings with certain capacities — to feel, to suffer, to prefer, eventually to reflect. A zygote has none of these; a late-term fetus has many; a newborn has most. …
Roads not taken A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. (54%) · Personhood is conferred by being-in-relation. (15%) · The question presupposes a fact of the matter that isn’t there. (8%)
Distinctive · only 16% of schools agree (32/202)
What is marriage?
Behind every disagreement about how marriage should be defined is a prior disagreement about what kind of thing it is — a given order to be recognized, a practice to be negotiated, or a web of relations to be woven.
Marriage is a practice we shape — its content is what we make it.
On this view, marriage is a human institution shaped by law, custom, and the agreements of those who enter it. There is no fixed essence to discover, only practices to negotiate. As societies change — granting women legal personhood, recognizing no-fault divorce, extending the institution …
Roads not taken Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. (54%) · Marriage is constituted by the web of relations it creates. (15%) · “Marriage” names a family of practices — the definition question is nominal. (8%)
Distinctive · only 23% of schools agree (47/202)
Does history have a direction or meaning?
Is history the unfolding of progress, the recovery of lost truth, a cyclical recurrence, the approach of consummation — or none of these?
History is the gradual unfolding of improvement or liberation.
Time bends, slowly, toward greater understanding, freedom, or fuller realization.
Roads not taken History is not where the deepest truth lives. (37%) · History is oriented toward a decisive consummation. (19%) · History recurs in cosmic cycles. (16%)
33 mainstream positions
Could causation work backwards? Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. 68% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. 68% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. 68% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. 66% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. 66% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. 66% Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all. 65% Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally. 50% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for. 49% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer. 49% What is our place in nature? Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. 48% Should we colonize space? Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. 48% Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. 48% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems. 46% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical. 46% Does prayer change God's mind? If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next. 46% Are the dead morally present to the living? Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present. 44% What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? The category does not apply — the school is non-religious. 44% Is reality fundamentally digital? No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure. 37% Are there indivisible units of experience? No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time. 37% Is memory stored or reconstructed? Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams. 37% What makes someone the same person over time? You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity. 36% Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed. 36% If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? Different body, different person — you died in the scanner. 36% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind. 32% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration. 32% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce. 32% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it. 32% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing. 32% What happens to "you" when you die? Death is genuinely the end. 30% Could an AI have a mind that matters? No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain. 30% How is knowledge of reality produced? Through controlled empirical investigation. 17% Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal? Liberation is the realization of cosmic or species self. 15%
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
Jump to school (202)
#1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 #21 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29 #30 #31 #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 #40 #41 #42 #43 #44 #45 #46 #47 #48 #49 #50 #51 #52 #53 #54 #55 #56 #57 #58 #59 #60 #61 #62 #63 #64 #65 #66 #67 #68 #69 #70 #71 #72 #73 #74 #75 #76 #77 #78 #79 #80 #81 #82 #83 #84 #85 #86 #87 #88 #89 #90 #91 #92 #93 #94 #95 #96 #97 #98 #99 #100 #101 #102 #103 #104 #105 #106 #107 #108 #109 #110 #111 #112 #113 #114 #115 #116 #117 #118 #119 #120 #121 #122 #123 #124 #125 #126 #127 #128 #129 #130 #131 #132 #133 #134 #135 #136 #137 #138 #139 #140 #141 #142 #143 #144 #145 #146 #147 #148 #149 #150 #151 #152 #153 #154 #155 #156 #157 #158 #159 #160 #161 #162 #163 #164 #165 #166 #167 #168 #169 #170 #171 #172 #173 #174 #175 #176 #177 #178 #179 #180 #181 #182 #183 #184 #185 #186 #187 #188 #189 #190 #191 #192 #193 #194 #195 #196 #197 #198 #199 #200 #201 #202