Giving What We Can's blog, featuring the latest news from our community.

Stay up to date with Giving What We Can's blog. Featuring the latest news about our community, how to donate effectively, charity evaluation, community events and more!

Blog

footerNavigation

About us

Contact us

Our team

Our members

Our events

Our mistakes

Donate to Giving What We Can

Transparency

About

Our best charities

Take a giving pledge

Get involved

Make a bequest

Videos, books, podcasts

FAQs

Sitemap

Learn more

Press kit

Media coverage

Case studies: People who pledge to give

Media

Footer Navigation

topNavigation

Recommended charities

High-impact causes

Why give to funds

How much to donate

Why donate publicly

Recommendations

Comparing charities

Choosing a cause

Inclusion criteria

Trusted evaluators

Our approach

Videos, books, podcasts and essays

Myths and misconceptions

How rich am I?

Can money buy happiness?

Resources

Research

Team

The Pledge

Trial Pledge

Further Pledge

Bequests

Why pledge

Pledges

Newsletter

Podcast

Videos

Sharing our ideas

Events

Giving games

Charity elections

Pledge drive

Careers

Community

Donate now

Best charities

Manage my donations

Tax deductibility

Donate

My pledge

My donations

My income

My impact

Pledge

My giving

Top Navigation

Luke Freeman

"Climb that evolutionary ladder but then kick it away to reach a point where we can offer everybody the same regard that our ancestors only offered the people within their tribe."

, we are joined again by renowned psychologist, 

, for part two of our interview, where we explore his book 

 The main question that Moral Tribes is asking is "what kind of a morality do we need to live on a single earth, single planet with lots of different people from lots of different groups with competing values and competing interests"? Historically, when groups of humans have had conflicts of interest or conflicts of values, they've just fought it out. In recent centuries, we've built structures, we found ways for more and more diverse peoples to get along with each other but, at the same time, we still struggle with this within nations and between nations.

And so, I came at this from first principles as a philosopher. I started thinking about philosophy when I was in my early teens when I started doing debate in high school. And I thought that utilitarianism makes a kind of sense. This is the philosophy that goes back to Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill that says "Okay. Well, what really matters?" What matters is people's happiness or people's suffering, their experience and wellbeing. And when you start with anything that you care about and say "Okay but why does that matter and why does that matter?" and you keep following until you run out of answers, you end up with something about the quality of someone's lived experience. If you say like "Oh, you go to work. Well, why do you work?"

"Well, I don't want to like live outside or I will ..."

At some point, if you follow that chain, you ultimately get to pain and suffering or a sort of broader inventory of positive or negative experiences, right? So, that makes sense. And then you say "Okay. Well, that's what ultimately matters." That's sort of the value, the currency behind other values.

Whose wellbeing or suffering or happiness matters? And the utilitarian answer was, at the time, a radical one, which is everyone's: everyone's suffering matters the same, everyone's happiness matters the same. And what we should be doing to make the world better is to make the world less suffering and more positive, right?

And that all made sense to me but at the same time, I learned in high school when I was a debater that there were these objections to this idea of promoting the greater good. If you have five people who all have missing organs and you could save them by kidnapping one person and carving out their organs and giving them to the other five people, would that be okay? And it seemed to me "No, that seems wrong" and it seems wrong to a lot of people.

And so, I thought "Well, on the one hand, this idea of promoting the greater good makes a lot of sense. On the other hand, it seems like there are some compelling arguments against it." And I wanted to get to the bottom of that and say "Okay. Well, which is right? Is it the greater good that should prevail or is there something right about these arguments?"

And that line of thinking got me into the psychology and ultimately the neuroscience of moral thinking. And I started thinking a lot about moral dilemmas that kind of encapsulate this tension.

A lot of the early work involved brain imaging, we were actually looking at people's brains while they were making these decisions and trying to sort of understand the competing mechanisms in the brain that make these dilemmas feel like such dilemmas.

So, after many years of thinking about this as a philosopher and then later as a scientist trying to understand how we make moral decisions, Moral Tribes was sort of the culmination of all of that.

So, I spend the first part of the book kind of laying out the basics of human morality as I understand it, which I think of as a suite of psychological tendencies that enable us to cooperate, that enable us to not just be selfish and reap the benefits of teamwork.

That sort of gets us to the morality within the tribe. And the modern problem is "Okay but what about when we have tribes that have competing interests in the same way that within a tribe, you have individuals with competing interests?"

Morality, basic morality is what enables a bunch of otherwise selfish individuals to form a tribe.

So, what do we need when we've got tribes at each other, right? And the answer is we need something like a meta morality. And what I argue is that utilitarianism relieves the right meta morality.

And I also argue that utilitarianism is a terrible word. It just completely gives people the wrong idea about what it means to try to make the world as happy as possible and alleviate as much suffering as possible.

I suggest my alternative which I call 'Deep Pragmatism' which hasn't yet really taken off but here I am. If anyone wants to call themselves the deep pragmatist, please go ahead and let me know that you're doing it ... you don't have to let me know.

Essentially you can sort of summarize it this way that when it comes to the morality of everyday life, it's fine to rely on our intuitive emotional sense of right and wrong, most of the time, but when it comes to solving global moral problems, when it comes to problems between groups that have different moral intuitions, we can't rely on our moral intuitions. We need some kind of common currency.

The argument of Moral Tribes is that our intuitions are helpful but imperfect. We sometimes need to put them aside and slow down and make certain kinds of judgements and policies based on a more reasoned approach to promoting human welfare.

The book kind of ends with a sort of small set of practical suggestions about how to do this. And one of them is you can't control everything but one thing you control is what you do with your extra cash. And I suggested that people use that to do as much good as possible with the help of GiveWell and other organizations like that. And that's part of what led me to say "Okay, it's time to start putting this stuff into action." And then that's what led to 

 I'd love for you to talk a little bit about the difference between the moral worlds of our early human ancestors compared to that about recent ancestors and those of us alive today and the kind of things are going to be facing in the future and why you think that the book and the work you've done there informs some of that.

 Morality is an interesting thing because morality didn't necessarily evolve for niceness. The best explanation that we have for why we are moral beings is because of competition, that is morality evolved because it's really a device about teamwork, right?

Imagine a bunch of different human groups. And you have some groups where everybody's out for themselves as individuals and you have other groups where the individuals are willing to cooperate and work together to advance their collective interest and out-compete other groups. Well, which group do you think is going to be more successful? The group of divisive individualists or the group that really works as a team, right?

So, teamwork is an effective competitive weapon, whether it's literally competition in war or more indirect competition for resources or just the ability to stabilize and grow.

So, our basic ability to care about other people and be willing to offer someone else some food when I have some and you don't or jump in a river and pull you out when you're drowning and hope that you might do the same for me or for my child if given the opportunity, those capacities evolved because of this value of teamwork.

So, if morality is ultimately about competition, then does that mean that we can never form one ultimate group or can we do better than that? And my hope as both a scientist and as a philosopher is that we can adjust our thinking for the modern world. So, yes, morality evolved as a device for teamwork within groups for competition between groups but we can take that basic psychology and decide that we want to scale it up, that we don't have to follow the evolutionary logic that gave us morality in the first place.

An example of climbing the evolutionary ladder and kicking it away in a different domain but related is like birth control. How did we humans end up with birth control? The directive of natural selection is: "make as many copies of yourself as you can and survive". It's reproduce, reproduce. And yet, here we invented this thing that enables us to not reproduce as much as we otherwise could.

So, evolution gave us these big clever brains that allow us to engage in general purpose problem solving. It also gave us some desires to have and rear children but it also gave us some desires to have sex that are not related to rearing children. And so, we very clever apes said "Hey, If we do this, that, and the other thing and make this pill, we can have sexual activities that we enjoy but without having more and more and more and more children."

Now, if evolution could speak, they would say "No, that's the worst thing in the world that you could possibly do." And our response to that is "Tough luck. This is what we want," that we don't have to adopt evolution's values as our values. We can say "You know what? Having zero or one or two children is fine even if we could support 10 children with the resources that we have."

And in the same way, even if morality evolved for in-group cohesion and between-group competition, there's no reason why we can't say "All right but what really makes sense when we think about it is valuing everybody's wellbeing." And so, we should climb that evolutionary ladder but then kick it away to reach a point where we can offer everybody the same regard that our ancestors only offered the people within their tribe, passing the baton biological evolutionary imperatives to cultural ones that reflect a kind of values that's grounded in our nature but not bound by our nature.

11:06 – How big can our moral tribes be?

 Do you think that we have natural limits to how big our moral tribes can be or do you see that there is a path to a maximally big tribe that's quite expansive?

 I would say that there are obstacles and there are tensions but I don't want to say that there are necessarily any limits on that.

I mean, if you look at a modern city and imagine someone from 5,000 years ago looking at that and saying "What? You know, you live in a world where there is enough food to feed everybody and there are resources available for people from all over the world to get an education and do the things that they find to be fulfilling and people from tribes that were historically trying to kill each other now working comfortably together," it would be like almost impossible for someone 5,000 years ago to imagine a prosperous and relatively integrated place like the successful and prosperous cities and nations that we have here on earth.

So, we tend to focus on everything that's wrong with the world today. And there is a lot wrong with it and I am not for a moment denying that there is terrible injustice and that we should be working hard to overcome it but, at the same time, I see a lot of progress in our history and I don't see any reason why it's impossible that we can't make the same kind of progress in the future that we have made in the past.

 What kind of response have you received with your work?

 One of the great joys of being a scientist is you put something out there, you describe a theory, present some results in support of it and then other people say "Oh, I get that idea. And I bet if that theory is right, then these patients with this kind of neurological damage, I predict that they would respond this way instead of that way. And people with this other neurological disorder might give the opposite response." Labs around the world sort of took this idea and really ran with it and provided a lot of the most compelling evidence for the ideas that we were initially testing.

Of course, science is science and once that idea becomes popular, people then are especially inclined to challenge it. And so, there've been people who criticized it and proposed alternative theories. Overall, I think the original ideas have survived pretty well but certainly with some interesting modifications and extensions.

On the philosophical side, I can't say that there has been a sort of utilitarian revolution in philosophy as a result. I mean, part of it, I think, is I was defending a conclusion that had already been defended by other well-known historical figures. So, it wasn't a novel conclusion but more of a different way of getting there.

I think one of the challenges in philosophy is there's this idea, which I actually think is correct, that you can't derive an ought from an is. Science is about "is", describing what's going on in the world and why, whereas morality is about "ought", it's about how the world ought to be or how people ought to behave, not how they do. And so, there's the simple-minded version of that that says "And that means that all science is irrelevant because is over here, ought over there." And so, there was a kind of, I think, kneejerk response among a lot of philosophers to think: "how could this possibly be relevant?". And instead of reading closely and then saying "Oh, I see how this could be relevant," they just imagined the worst version of the argument and assumed that that must be it.

When I talk to philosophers, often I have to explain to them "No, I'm not making the dumb argument that you've imagined that I've made. It's more complicated than that" but I think there have been others who have gotten it. And I think the idea that understanding ourselves is relevant to moral thinking shouldn't be such an outlandish idea.

It would be one thing if the way philosophers arrived at their moral conclusions was with formal proofs, deducing these principles, conclusions from first principles and where it's just like a math problem. And it doesn't matter what your psychology is like if you're doing math, you don't have to get into the psychology of mathematics. You just look at the proof and ask "Does each step in the proof follow from the last until you get to the conclusion?".

And if moral philosophy were like that, then psychology would be irrelevant but what happens in moral philosophy is we rely on our intuitions. We say "Well, that's clearly wrong." And anytime people say "clearly", you know, that they're relying on their intuitions. Well, anytime you're relying on your intuition, you're essentially making a leap from a psychological is to a moral ought. You're saying "It is the case that I have this feeling. And therefore, you ought not do that," right? Anytime you're relying on intuition, you're already making a kind of is-ought leap.

And what science can do is it can say "Look, what's behind your intuition? Where is it coming from? And what's the best explanation that we have based on our understanding of the psychological and biological history of how we got to have these feelings of why you feel that way?" And then that gives us some insight into "Okay, but does it really make sense to trust those feelings or should we perhaps look for a more abstract and maybe less emotionally satisfying but systematic approach to answering those moral questions?" And that's essentially what I've been arguing.

 community, which is looking at how we can use our resources to do the most good. I'd be interested in your thoughts on utilitarianism and kind of its relationship with effective altruism and what the overlaps might be.

16:53 – Relationship between utilitarianism and effective altruism

 One of the things that I really like about the effective altruism movement is that it doesn't start with utilitarianism. I think the idea of "If you're going to try to help, help as effectively as possible. And if you're in a really good position to help, shouldn't you be helping?", that's a very broadly appealing idea whereas utilitarianism is much more abstract and it is much more susceptible to tough counterarguments require even more complicated counter-counterarguments to counter.

Why didn't I invent effective altruism, you know, when I was an undergrad and first thinking about these things? I think it's because I was thinking "Well, step one, convince people that utilitarianism is right. Step two, put it into action." And I think part of the genius of effective altruism is it just skips right over step one. It just says "Look, you may have this kind of more encompassing philosophical view that a lot of us share but you don't have to." You can just say "I'm incredibly fortunate to have these resources. I want other people to have the advantages that I've had and to not suffer unnecessarily and I want to use my resources to do as much good as I can." You can buy into that without buying into this complicated and controversial moral philosophy.

So, I applaud the effective altruism movement for skipping over the philosophy, at least not going there as the first step, but then I think it's also important or helpful to say "Look, if you want to understand where did these ideas come from and how might this fit into an attempt to have a more coherent encompassing worldview, now it's time to have a philosophical discussion." I think what EA did was sort of get the order right for practical purposes, which is the opposite of the order that I was thinking about as a young 20-something Philosophy student.

 Yeah. Thank you. In your conversation with 

, you talked about taking an incremental approach and beating your personal best in the face of this 

 Effective altruism is sort of wonderfully fulfilling in the sense that you realize that you have this ability as a relatively ordinary person with some disposable income to just dramatically improve people's lives. Will MacAskill talks about if you could run into a burning building and pull somebody out and save their life, that would be a highlight of your life if you're able to be that kind of hero. And when it comes to the consequences of effective giving, you can be that hero every year. I mean, it doesn't feel as heroic as putting your life at risk like that but you can at least say "I'm really happy that I'm able to do this."

Where it gets tough is where do you stop? And this is a common argument that's made against this is "Well, if you have an obligation to give the first thousand dollars, why not the second, why not the third?" There's an unlimited supply of people who can benefit much more from your resources than you can, at least up to the point where giving more would impede your ability to give even more in the future, which is pretty, pretty far.

One approach is to beat yourself up for failing to live up to that ideal but that doesn't really make a lot of sense. Nothing good comes from beating yourself up that way. And you say "Well, then what's the alternative? Do you just throw up your hands and say "Forget it. I can't live up to the ideal. So, I'm just going to do nothing?" Well, now we're back to where we started.

 started after his book, has a nice phrase which is "personal best". The right way to think about it is not "You have to do everything" or "It's fine to do nothing" but "Do what you feel comfortable with to start?" And then once that feels comfortable and maybe your income has grown or you just have rethought your needs and you don't need as much money as you thought, then you say "Okay. Well, I'll see if I can do a little bit more. And see if I can do a little bit more." And that approach just makes so much more sense that you don't have the despair of "I'm failing to live up to this ideal" or the despair of "It's impossible. I can't do this." Instead, you just do what you can and try to do better.

I think that that's a much healthier and in the long run more sustainable and spreadable approach. If you say "Look, I live a happy fulfilling life. I don't feel like I'm deprived but I use a substantial amount of my income to help people who are much less fortunate than me and who can benefit so much more than I can from these resources," that not only, I think, is admirable, but it's emulatable. That's something that you can pass on to your children and your friends. The best sort of altruistic culture is the most sustainable one.

 I've heard many times from people in the 

" to aim at, has been a kind of nice way of resolving moral demandingness for them to kind of go "Here's a reasonable amount that's significant but not unsustainable for many people".

22:27 – How "trolley problems" accidentally took off

 I would be interested in how you feel about the pop culture representations of kind of pseudo-utilitarian characters like Spock or often in many cases villains. And do you see that changing?

 I think, there was like some Batman movie or something like that where the villain is basically creating a trolley problem -- "Do you save this person or save these people? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha."

The hero is never going to say "Okay, save more people" or "Let them die and save the person that I care about." Instead, they're going to find a way to argue their way out of the dilemma or to fight their way out of the dilemma.

And what I find when I pose these dilemmas to people, they'll work as hard as they can to dismantle the dilemma so they don't have to face it so that there isn't a tension between the harm and the greater good but I think one thing that I regret about my own career as a scientist is that I got interested in trolley dilemmas, you know, "kill one person to save five people," because I was interested in the psychology of objections to utilitarianism.

So, I went out of my way to look at utilitarianism in its least appealing moments to try to understand the psychology against it and see if when we look at the psychology against it, the feeling that it's wrong to kill one to save five people, does that feeling reflect a really deep kind of deontological truth or is it an over-generalization of an otherwise good principle like "Don't kill people?".

And so, that's what I was up to. I was focusing on utilitarianism at its least appealing for honest philosophical reasons. When I started this, I wasn't thinking this was going to really take off and become something that like tons of people in psychology and maybe outside of psychology learn about. And for a lot of people, their introduction to the idea of utilitarianism was pushing people in front of trolleys and I was like "Oh no, what have I done?" and I was like "That was never my intention."

It was kind of, on the one hand, this attempt to be a good honest philosopher and face the argument against your view head on and also an interesting kind of psychological puzzle where you look at these weird cases in order to tease apart the competing cognitive mechanisms. So, they're kind of like visual illusions where it's not a typical thing that you'd look at but it's constructed in such a way that it tells you something about your visual system.

And so, I had sort of weird psychological reasons and weird philosophical reasons for focusing on these sacrificial dilemmas that's people now call them but it's kind of done a lot of unnecessary bad press for utilitarianism that there's been so much focus on this, whereas in real life, being a utilitarian is much more about being generous in a thoughtful evidence-based way and thinking carefully about what you eat and what kind of a career you have. And it's not about sacrificing people in transportation dilemmas.

I'm not sure what I would do differently but that really is a regret that I had, that my research has put so much of a focus on killing people for the greater good.

 I really appreciated the things you were able to tease out in that, so things like instrumental harm as means to an end and also being the person who was involved in the action and just like the dramatic difference.

25:47 – Different versions of trolley dilemmas

 So, some of the early experiments we did, and this was not like anything high-tech brain-imaging stuff, this was just giving people lots of slightly different versions of trolley dilemmas and seeing what our intuitions are sensitive to, and it seems like there's sort of two main factors that interact.

One is what we call personal force. So, if you ask people "Is it okay to push somebody with your hands in front of the trolley to save five people?", people say no. "Is it okay to push somebody with a pole?", still no. "Is it okay to hit a switch that opens a trap door that will drop somebody in front of the trolley and save five people?", there are a lot more people who will say yes. And then they'll also say yes if you're hitting a switch and you're farther away but the spatial distance doesn't make a big difference.

So, it's something like pushing versus hitting a switch but what we also found is that if the pushing is not instrumental, then it doesn't have the same effect. One of the cases we gave people was, let's say you can save five people by hitting a switch but you have to run across this narrow bridge to get to the switch. And if you do that, you're going to knock this person off this bridge. There people will say it's mostly okay to run to the switch even if it means you're going to knock somebody off as long as you save five people. You're pushing them with your muscles, your body, it's very close and personal but their death is not a means to an end. It's a foreseen side-effect. It's collateral damage, as people say.

And then you can have other cases where it is a means but there's no personal force and it doesn't have much of an effect. So, it was one of the early sort of fun set of scientific mysteries that we worked out was isolating these factors and showing how they interact with each other.

My colleague Fiery Cushman has really done a brilliant job of understanding the learning mechanisms and emotional training mechanisms that give rise to these feelings.

If you ask people to think about the consequences of performing some harmful action, how bad they feel about the consequences doesn't predict what they'd say about these moral dilemmas but if you ask them "Imagine being an actor and you have to act at a scene in which you, you know, take a knife and stab somebody like this. How bad do you feel about just imagining that action?". Imagining it does predict what people say about the moral dilemma.

So, it's how we attach emotions to actions in particular contexts. If people are doing a kind of decision-making maze where there are different options that you pick and they lead to like different rooms that then can lead to other rooms that will have like rewards or punishments and so you can learn to associate certain actions with certain outcomes over time but then you can be in a situation where you learn actually, if you do the thing that normally leads to something bad, it'll lead to something good or if you do the thing that normally leads to something good, it'll lead to something bad but I'm telling you there's this other pathway that will get you to the good thing.

The people who are relying more on their feelings about what has worked well in the past ... And this is not a moral context at all. This is essentially like navigating a maze and getting little bits of cheese or electric shocks. The people who take a more model free approach, that is where they're not mapping the whole situation, they're just "How do I feel about performing this action in this context based on my past experience?", that predicts people's moral judgments in trolley sorts of cases.

So, it's really these very general principles of learning and feeling that apply outside the moral domain as well as in it that are sort of guiding our judgements in these cases.

Joshua Greene: Moral Tribes and bridging the gap between "us" and "them"

Ollie Base

We recently spoke with member Ollie Base from London, UK. He shared with us his journey to taking The Giving What We Can Pledge and what she'd say to people on the fence about pledging.

What motivated you to take the Giving What We Can Pledge?

There are so many pressing problems that it can often feel like it's insurmountable or we don't know how to get started. Giving What We Can is one of the best ways I've come across where you feel like you're making a difference. You can give to effective charities and feel like you're making progress because it's a lifetime commitment – it's a significant amount of money you're giving towards these problems.

It's a rare community, a really special community of people dedicated to trying to make a difference, which is just hard to come across.

So for that reason, I think we should give: to have some route towards solving these problems.

What would you say to someone on the fence about taking a giving pledge?

Why take the pledge? I think the best thing I can say is I took it four years ago (as I mentioned, I took it when I was a student, and my life's changed a lot since then), and I still think it's one of the things I'm most proud of.

Sometimes I set aside a set amount of money that I might otherwise spend on other things I like, and I do end up giving because of the pledge.

I feel proud. I feel part of a really special community, and, most importantly, I feel like I'm helping make progress on the most pressing problems.

What did your journey to Giving What We Can look like?

I encountered Giving What We Can through the effective altruism society at Warwick, where I was studying.

When I joined, there were a few people who had already taken The Pledge and (although this wasn't a prerequisite for being involved) it was always something I was aware of through interacting with this group.

So I took the pledge in 2017, two years after I came across effective altruism. And it wasn't as if I was spending that time hesitating as such. It was more that I knew I wanted to take it, that this was a community I wanted to be involved in, but I wanted to spend some time working out 

Spending a bit of time thinking about it is good: I waited for what I felt was the right time. I do think people should take some time to think about it properly. I know some people will come across it and take it almost the moment they hear about it – and that's great – but I think, if someone were to ask me, I'd say "having a bit of time to make sure you grasp what it is, it's really important, it's really special".

Doing anything for a lifetime, no matter whether that's a person you're dating or a place you're going to live, spending some time thinking hard about what you're committing to is always a good idea.

I was still a student when I took it. So I still was not giving away very much when I started. Now that I'm earning, it's more comfortable. But it really feels separate from my finances: it is a pledge about making a moral commitment. It is a pledge about what I want to do with my life and my earnings over time. Because it's a percentage too, it tracks well with how much we're earning anyway.

I know there are various considerations you might want to take into account about when you take it, but for me, it was more about the moral commitment of "I want to use my wealth to solve the world's most pressing problems".

Member Profile: Ollie Base

"By not talking about giving, we reduce the amount of giving." - Luke Freeman

, the tables have been turned as our Executive Director, 

, is interviewed by Josh Ross, the CEO and co-founder of 

, a ticketing platform that is set up as a charity so it can turn its profits into good.

 Hi, I'm Joshua Ross, co-founder of Humanitix. And with me today is Luke Freeman, executive director of 

, an organisation that helps people maximise their charitable impact. Giving What We Can Was originally founded by two Oxford philosophers, 

. And Will MacAskill, in particular, is very well known for writing a book called 

, which is probably the thought-leading book on 

 in the world today. And it's a great book. If you're interested in how to use not just your money and resources but also your time and career to maximise impact for the world, it's a must read.

 I met Luke through Global Shapers, which is a group of the World Economic Forum that is designed to give a voice to young people in their 20s, adults, but who typically aren't representative in global affairs. That's how Luke and I met. And he's got a really interesting background starting, in my opinion, at school.

Luke, not to write off your first 15 years of life, but why don't you tell us a bit about how you forged your career and got off the traditional path.

 Yeah. Well, it actually started even before that. I was homeschooled for the first seven years of my schooling life. And then, when I went to school, I was fortunate enough that the New South Wales Institute of Sports went by and measured everyone up and got them to jump and things like that. And I ended up being on the fast track for pretty high-level rowing. That threw a spanner in the works in trying to finish my HSC and show up to classes at 7:30 when I was travelling and rowing at a state and national level.

So, I had to figure out: "What am I trying to do?. Well, I want to get a degree. I want to go to university -- I know the benefits that it affords someone" and so, I found out that technically I could enter as a mature age student just by sitting entrance exams and doing some bridging courses. So, at the end of grade 10, over the summer, I found myself starting university at the ripe old age of 15. And to fund my way through that, I had to be independent, which meant that I was working as a freelance consultant doing web design and development. So that was an interesting path, but it meant that I also had an income fairly young and was, from quite a young age, thinking about what I would do with that income.

I remember being really shocked to realise how much I had relative to other people. Again, I was from a middle-income family in Australia, which doesn't seem like a lot. We were careful with our budget, cooked all the time at home, and didn't go on a lot of holidays other than camping. But realising that there are some people who didn't have access to basic healthcare and education and that that was just purely due to the luck of circumstances -- it drove me to do what I can to make a difference.

I did a lot of things when I was in school, like the 40-Hour Famine (I did it, and then I ended up organising it for both my school, my church) and was quite involved with campaigns like Make Poverty History. So, when I entered university and got involved with things there, I was trying to seek out "How does the world really work? How do we solve some of these problems that we're facing?". I decided before I let my expenses start to expand, as we typically do, I would try to make some form of giving commitment.

And when you decide to give away a decent portion of your income, it suddenly becomes really important where you're giving. It's not just about the giver (and the idea that you're giving away and you're trying to be selfless). It's about caring about what happens with that money: is it helping people? If I was giving money away and it was doing harm, that would be terrible. If it was doing some good, that would be okay, but I really want that sacrifice to be worthwhile.

And so, that's when I discovered the early work of Giving What We Can and a charity evaluator called GiveWell. And that led me down this path of learning a lot more about how to do the most good with our resources in general.

 I'd like to start with the more tricky topics. Some people, they're really anti-charity. It's kind of weird when you encounter these types of people, but I've definitely met a few. They think that sometimes it does more harm than good. Luckily, it's a minority. I mean, all the major religions encourage giving; some of them mandate it. Most people you meet understand that a child who's dying at the age of one from cholera needs a handout, not a job. I'm keen to understand: what are the main arguments you come across giving? And how do you tackle those in your role?

 You get different objections from different worldviews. There are evidentiary objections, such as not thinking that particular interventions work, and some don't. Some charity doesn't work, and that's why it's important to find stuff that really does.

Sometimes it's philosophical questions. Around the progressive side of politics, it's "crowding out" what the services that government should be providing and the more conservative side of politics, it might be the view that people should be "self-sufficient" and that "charity is a handout".

So on that first [progressive] one: governments can generally do a good job of providing services when people are able to speak for themselves.

But if you're living in another country, you have very little ability to influence the flow of capital into that country. And then you've got things like animals: they have very little voice for themselves. And future generations. These groups are all going to be underrepresented by traditional democratic governments. So, it'd be very surprising if our governments were acting on behalf of these voices, which aren't going to be heard. And that's a role that charity can play. You can say, "Look, I care about these voices which aren't being heard and don't have the ability to speak for themselves. So, I want to put my money where my mouth is."

On the other [conservative] side: you've got the view that "people should be self-sufficient" and "charity is a handout".

A lot of the time some of the best charity is preventing terrible things from happening unnecessarily. So, that is things like neglected tropical diseases, intestinal worms, or malaria and things like that. These problems really prevent people to get educated, to get jobs, to show up. It's like COVID at the moment: if you're sick and dying unnecessarily or you're not able to go to work for fear of getting sick and things like that: this is just an impediment. And if you remove the impediment, people are able to help themselves a lot better. Removing impediments is one of the things that you can do with charities. You can fund programs that remove impediments. And there are lots of these things that really help people to better help themselves and help communities to better help themselves. And so, it's not "teach a man to fish". It's "stop polluting the fishing pond".

 That's a great way to put it. I like that.

Yeah, I've occasionally come across one that particularly sticks in my head, which is the "self-made man type of rationale".

Blog

Joshua Greene: Moral Tribes and bridging the gap between "us" and "them"

Member Profile: Ollie Base

Luke Freeman with Josh Ross: Maximising our charitable impact

Lucia Coulter: Doctor turned charity entrepreneur shares her mission to eliminate lead poisoning

August 2021 Newsletter

To make effective giving memorable, celebrate pledging!

Giving Multiplier Interview with Joshua Greene

Member Motivations: Why people pledged to give 10% of their income to effective charities

July 2021 Newsletter

Member Profile: Rickey Fukazawa