︎

80,000 Ineffective Hours

Drey Diggs, Pomona ’24

        At the end of four years of intellectual exploration, college students are tasked with making a choice to begin their careers. This choice weighs heavily on many, and 80,000 Hours, a 501(c)(3) non-profit dedicated to helping people make an effective career choice, does nothing to ease minds. The bold letters on their starting page are a stern reminder: “This is your most important decision.” Although 80,000 Hours seeks to help make this choice easier, the moral weight they place on careers and the specific advice they give is highly problematic. 80,000 Hours has roots in Effective Altruism, a philosophy and organization that suffers from moral urgency gone awry. This moral urgency has led to an underdeveloped philosophy that gives individual solutions to systemic issues. As a result, the advice of 80,000 Hours is often inaccessible and reinforces the systems that create and perpetuate the very issues it seeks to address.
        Effective Altruism refers both to a general philosophical movement and to a specific registered charity. As an organization, Effective Altruism emerged as an umbrella term for 80,000 Hours and another organization, Giving What We Can, which asks members to pledge 10% of their lifetime income to charity.1 The overarching goal of Effective Altruism and its associated organizations is to use evidence and reason to determine the most effective ways to use one’s time and money to do the most good possible.2 However, the philosophical groundwork for these organizations existed long before they were given a name, and their motivation and justification largely lie in the concept of impartiality. Effective Altruists are supposed to act in a way which accurately reflects the fact that there is no true difference between good for the self and good for others, or for someone near or far. This extends to the more controversial notion that one is equally as responsible for the bad that one allows to occur as they are for the bad that they themselves cause. Peter Singer credits himself as one of the contemporary influencers of Effective Altruism due to his work in “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” in which he argues that, given this impartiality, we must donate our resources up until the point of marginal utility where continuing to give would cause a level of harm that would outweigh the good it accomplishes.3
        Singer also suggests that Effective Altruism is more fundamentally derived from and justified by Henry Sigdwick’s Maxim of Benevolence, which states “that each one is morally bound to regard the good of any other individual as much as his own, except in so far as he judges it to be less, when impartially viewed, or less certainly knowable or attainable by him.”4 Essentially, Singer argues that the practical application of this maxim would entail giving one’s own excesses to those in need in the most efficient way possible. Effective Altruism, then, determines what are supposed to be the most efficient and effective ways to give and morally requires that one acts accordingly. Guides to Effective Altruism for more general audiences, such as effectivealtruism.organd Singer’s own book The Most Good You Can Do, tend to be significantly less demanding than Singer’s earlier work, which was aimed at an academic audience. Still, the lowered expectations to appeal to a wider audience do not indicate any change in the actual moral principles that motivate Effective Altruism, nor do they necessarily indicate that people would be evaluated any less stringently.
        With its job board5 and free career coaching,6 80,000 Hours doesn’t immediately appear philosophical. However, there is a moral weightiness to its advice. The articles and forums don’t teach people how to make best lives for themselves, but to make themselves into vessels for positive change for others. Because Effective Altruism views the efficiency of this task as morally relevant, following the advice of 80,000 Hours is morally required. Thus, the guidance of 80,000 Hours should be viewed philosophically as an illustration of how the moral principles of Effective Altruism can be applied to a particular context. It is in this context of work and career choice where the sloppiness and underdevelopment of Effective Altruism is the most apparent. As clever as it is to give moral counsel where so many are already seeking practical guidance, this makes negative consequences all the more salient. However, these criticisms which focus on the content of 80,000 Hours are actually reflections on the broader philosophy of Effective Altruism, and my condemnations hold for other facets of the broader organization and philosophy.
        Common criticisms of Effective Altruism tend to echo Bernard Williams’ classic critique of Utilitarianism, arguing that the impartiality of Effective Altruism backfires and leads to a loss of integrity on the part of Altruists.7  In his reflection on philosophical critiques that have been brought up against Effective Altruism, Jeff MacMahan accuses critics of relying too heavily on attacking the Utilitarian roots of the philosophy when, in fact, Effective Altruism can stand alone and is not actually tied to any particular ethical theory.8 This, although concerning in its own right, also leads Altruists to actively cause harm in the name of alleviating the human suffering caused by others. Although I am not fully convinced by MacMahan that Effective Altruism is not inherently reliant on Utilitarian thinking, that is not the concern of this paper. Instead, I aim to raise a criticism that would satisfy MacMahan by avoiding discussions of Utilitarianism and its shortcomings wherever possible. Instead, I intend to focus on the intense urgency behind Effective Altruism and the resulting philosophical underdevelopment.
        The urgency itself is more than justified. The issues which are the focus of Effective altruism—fighting extreme poverty, animal suffering, and improving the long-term future9—are dire. The effects of climate change and the risk of catastrophic global warfare grow more concerning by the day, and it is clear to anyone who cares to consider the situation critically that something must be done. Unfortunately, the urge to do something quickly can undermine the ability to do it well. Effective Altruists have created a philosophy that appears to be fittingly demanding for a demanding period of human history. Unfortunately, the demands are misdirected. For some, the guidance of 80,000 Hours is virtually impossible to follow. In cases where it can be followed, it may be more harmful than helpful in the long-term. The urge to make some change as quickly as possible results in a philosophy that approaches systemic issues with individual solutions. Extreme poverty, the factory farming which causes such high levels of animal suffering, and the various risks to our long-term future are all caused at least in part by the long-standing systems of capitalism, (neo-)colonialism, and imperialism. In its haste, Effective Altruism is effectively blind to these systems. It overlooks how they may prevent people from engaging in the altruistic behaviors it demands. Worse still, the career paths suggested by 80,000 Hours reinforce these very systems, perpetuating in the long-term the exact issues they aim so solve.
        The underdevelopment of Effective Altruism clearly manifests in the inaccessibility of the advice of 80,000 Hours. To moralize career choice so strongly, as 80,000 Hours does, is to operate under the assumption that all individuals have the privilege to choose their own career path. In fact, much of the working class struggles to find work that meets the cost of living, much less anything that would be deemed sufficiently altruistic. 80,000 Hours tends to suggest career paths such as government policy, AI or climate research, and grantmaking. This sort of work usually requires at least an undergraduate degree and tends to expect graduate study, not to mention the sort of social status and connections required to do the work well (to be effective in one’s altruism) For those who struggle to find any job at all that will hire them, who lack a college (or high school) diploma, who don’t have the social resources to change career paths, or who otherwise find these career paths inaccessible, 80,000 Hours seems to make a few exceptions, suggesting that one can still donate money, engage in advocacy, and volunteer. Still, these options also require time and money that many people simply don’t have. It is unclear, then, how Effective Altruists would evaluate those who work at factory farms (in an industry which Effective Altruism hopes to end) and in other jobs that may not be feel-good but which put food on the table for working class families.
        If 80,000 Hours were like many of the other career advising services, it would be significantly less concerning. It is unfortunate, in any case, that career advising would be aimed at those who are likely already secure. But it is the moral component of 80,000 Hours that makes this so much more severe. It’s unclear to what extent individuals with ineffective or completely non-altruistic careers are condemned, but at the very least they lack the opportunity to do right in the eyes of Effective Altruism. A well-developed moral philosophy should be accessible to all; Effective Altruism doesn’t even seem to be conscious of how out of reach its ideals are to the majority of the population. If it is self-conscious, that is perhaps worse. To intentionally write moral standards which can only be achieved by the rich is to deny all others the opportunity to live a moral life. The working class, to the Effective Altruist, is a group which is only acted on but which can’t be granted the privilege of acting for itself.
        For those who do have a substantial amount of freedom with regards to their career choice, the advice of Effective Altruism is often ineffective or even harmful. One of the career paths endorsed by 80,000 Hours is called Earning To Give, which involves working in high earning positions in order to donate money to effective nonprofits. Among the highlighted figures who have taken this path are the founder of a cryptocurrency exchange and a Wall Street trader. Although 80,000 Hours explicitly condemns certain careers they deem harmful, these positions, which perpetuate existing systems of harm, are explicitly endorsed. Many of the other positions that would qualify for Earning To Give involve exploiting and underpaying workers in order to turn a profit. In The Most Good You Can Do, Peter Singer suggests that an individual who sets up a factory in a developing country qualifies as an Effective Altruist so long as they pay somewhat more than the local factories and give away a substantial amount of their profits.10 This is highly troubling. That the factory has profits at all is an indication that the workers are not being compensated for the full value of their labor. But Singer and other advocates for Earning to Give encourage individuals to exploit workers, who are themselves struggling to get by, so that they can steal the value of their labor and donate it to organizations who will use the money more “effectively.”
        Here, a major issue with the very notion of giving only where most effective, the heart of Effective Altruism, becomes apparent. What is given must come from somewhere, and that place is often from those very people who are supposed to be the recipient of aid. An effective Altruist may start a factory, hire a worker, exploit that worker, and donate the profits to an organization that serves that worker (and others like them). In trying to make the money go further, the Effective Altruist denies the worker the agency to determine themselves what they need most. This, although concerning in its own right, also leads Altruists to actively cause harm in the name of alleviating the human suffering caused by others. Not only is the worker denied their agency, but the fact that the causes that Effective Altruism and 80,000 Hours support work within and reinforce existing systems of harm is an indication that they are not as effective as they claim to be. In the long term, the exploited worker could very well have been better off without the interference of the Altruist.
        Endorsed careers outside of the Earning to Give umbrella can be harmful as well. Among the other recommended paths is Government and Policy. Attempting to counter the point that Effective Altruism ignores systemic change, 80,000 Hours specifically suggests work within party politics.11 This recommendation, and the reasoning behind it, is bizarre at best. Suggesting that working within party politics to change policy falls within the category of systemic change indicates a complete misunderstanding of the very nature of systemic change. Working within party politics only validates a system that has been proven to be incredibly inefficient and which disproportionately benefits the ruling class. Suggestions to work for or monetarily support non-profits are similarly harmful, although less direct. Non-profits protect governments from accountability for failing to support their citizens. In her review of Peter Unger’s Living High and Letting Die, Martha Nussbaum also notes that non-profits are simply unprepared to deal with the practical complications that would come with the level of funding Effective Altruists hope will be directed towards organizations such as Oxfam and UNICEF.12 This concern is very much hypothetical, as it is more than unlikely that these organizations would ever amass the kind of wealth that Nussbaum imagines. In fact, Effective Altruism is supposed to be fluid, so it would stop recommending the donations to any particular organization if it were to be overfunded, Still, this fluidity is yet another indicator of a rushed philosophy.
        The fluidity of Effective Altruism is surely meant to come across as a sign of maturity,13 but it is quite the opposite. Working minute-to-minute on whichever cause appears the most promising is essentially a search for instant moral gratification. Rather than examining opportunities for systemic changes that would have a much larger long-term impact, Effective Altruists work with whatever they are given. The tenants of impartiality and benevolence that form the backbone of Effective Altruism are commendable, and it is unfortunate that principles are advice were so hastily derived from them. A philosophy should, at the very least, hold up to its own standards. Unfortunately, the desire for speedy change has caused Effective Altruism to become irrational and ineffective. In the face of moral urgency, it is the task of philosophers to do what they do best and truly reflect on which of the nearly infinite options should be perused. The poor and inaccessible advice of 80,000 Hours demonstrates the disaster that can arise when haste meddles with philosophy.

Endnotes
  1. Peter Singer, The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas about Living Ethically (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2016), 11.
  2. “Introduction to Effective Altruism,” Effective Altruism, March 1, 2020, https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-effective-altruism/.
  3. Singer, “The Most Good You Can Do”, 13.
  4. Singer, 82.
  5. “Job Board,” 80,000 Hours, accessed October 12, 2021, https://80000hours.org/job-board/. 
  6. “Speak with Us,” 80,000 Hours, accessed December 10, 2021, https://80000hours.org/speak-with-us/?int_campaign=2021-08__primary-navigation.
  7. J. J. C. Smart and Bernard Williams, Utilitarianism: For and Against (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1973), 108–18.
  8. Jeff McMahan, “Philosophical Critiques of Effective Altruism,” The Philosophers' Magazine, no. 73 (2016): 92–99, https://doi.org/10.5840/tpm20167379.
  9. Effective Altruism, “Introduction to Effective Altruism.”
  10. Singer, “The Most Good You Can Do”, 10.
  11. Benjamin Todd, “Misconceptions about Effective Altruism,” 80,000 Hours, June 1, 2021, https://80000hours.org/2020/08/misconceptions-effective-altruism/#misconception-3-effective-altruism-ignores-systemic-change.
  12. Martha Nussbaum, “If Oxfam Ran the World,” London Review of Books, November 7, 2019, https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v19/n17/martha-nussbaum/if-oxfam-ran-the-world.
  13. “Frequently Asked Questions and Common Objections,” Effective Altruism, accessed December 24, 2021, https://www.effectivealtruism.org/faqs-criticism-objections/#if-everyone-followed-the-advice-of-effective-altruism-wouldnt-that-lead-to-a-misallocation-of-resources.