Charities and the most good (part 2)
The school of altruism affects a person’s will and capacity to be charitable. This difference in motivations underscores a key philosophical debate, highlighted by Hume, regarding the role of sympathy in moral behaviour. As Hume argues, ‘sympathy is the chief source of moral distinctions’; altruistic behaviours stem from empathies that arise from a person and motivate them to support the cause. Person A is more able to empathize with those who they are aiding; thus they are more willing to donate to the cause. Rather than abstract optimizations of capital in effective altruism which generates little sympathies and few moral sentiments, to encourage a person to start supporting charity, having empathy or sympathy to the aided is likely to increase the will of a person to become involved in charitable actions. If the first step is to prioritize the ‘most good’ for the aided while neglecting the moral empathies that one innately has, one would be less persuaded in supporting a good cause. Their capacity and willingness would likely be lower with less passion and desire to help. Thus, for a person who is previously not very charitable (such as Person A), prioritizing the ‘most good’ for themselves, supporting those they empathize most with, and trading off the ‘most good’ for the aided is the best way to make a person start a charitable action. To have some charitable action that is not maximized creates more good than no charitable actions at all. Thus, prioritizing emotional altruism at the start creates the ‘most good’ for all. One’s charitable willingness is more likely to sustain for a longer period of time if one has an emotional connection to the aided. Hume critiques that a purely logical, rational approach (such as Givewell) ignores the emotional drivers that makes one support charity in the first place. If Person A decides to maximize the ‘most good’ for the aided, it is likely that Person A would not be able to sustain the charitable act long term due to a drop in motivation and fulfilment over time, as Person A would now need to justify their actions logically and rationally (rather than from innate emotions). Although it is somewhat possible that this motivation can persist (such as with Person B), Person B only justifies their action from a utilitarian perspective. Having empathy towards the aided creates a higher certainty that the charitable act continues, providing a greater long-term impact, which creates a greater good overall. Rawls’ theory of justice needs to be considered when creating a fair system of distribution of aid while attempting to maximize good. Under a veil of ignorance, a sufferer does not know in what way they will be suffering. Therefore, they would want to create a system that distributes aid fairly so everyone would have the opportunity to be saved, regardless of their situation. Rawls argues, as a moral principle, that a just system that minimizes suffering for all equally is better than a system where some are prioritized based on certain conditions such as geography or cost. This leads onto the limitations of effective altruism. Although effective altruism minimizes the suffering of people to the fullest extent, its utilitarian approach, which uses cost-effectiveness to justify who to help first, leads to an unfair system. Take Person A and B again: if both were to support charities rationally through an evaluation of cost, there is a far lower likelihood of the cancer patients being supported, because a cancer drug is costlier than food and supplies. Rawls would argue that a pure effective altruism approach creates an unfair system as the sufferers did not have a choice to choose which type of suffering they would face; although both are suffering to the same degree, one’s suffering is minim ized and the other is not. A fair approach is needed, one that avoids a purely utilitarian method while balancing both the good done and the fairness.
242
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker