How effective is your altruism?

Most of us do give, or at least have given, to charity at some point in our lives – a few coins in a charity box, recycling unwanted items or even running a few kilometers. But not many of us have ever really sat down and thought about how effective our altruistic efforts are.

Philosopher Peter Singer has given much more than most – including thousands of dollars to reduce malaria-related childhood deaths. Like the other altruists he talks about in his thought-provoking speech, he not only gives more than most, but he takes the time and effort to ensure his donations are effective – that they reduce as much poverty and save as many lives as possible. He is an effective altruist.

In case you’ve not heard the term before, effective altruism is an approach to giving that maximizes positive impact, whether it is your money, your time or your knowledge you are donating. To do this Peter calculates the size of his positive impact – it helps in making decisions about where he should focus his attention.

But can you truly calculate that figure? What if I don’t agree that training a guide dog for one blind person has less of a positive impact than saving the sight of hundreds? Does it have to be a choice between one or the other? Or what if donations did more harm than good in the long term, creating dependencies or empowering an undemocratic ruler?

What is the true value of our altruism?

Can that question ever really be answered? If the answer is no, how can we ever say whether our own altruism is truly effective?