A new philosophy of giving, championed by some of Silicon Valley’s wealthiest and most influential figures, has quietly reshaped modern philanthropy over the last decade, channeling billions of dollars toward causes deemed the most impactful by data and reason. This movement, known as Effective Altruism (EA), was propelled into the mainstream by tech billionaires like Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz and, most notoriously, FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried. It proposes a radical, utilitarian approach to charity: use evidence and analysis to do the most possible good for the greatest number of people, a quantitative ethos that has found fertile ground in the tech world but now faces a profound crisis of credibility following the spectacular collapse of one of its biggest patrons.
What is Effective Altruism?
At its heart, Effective Altruism is a framework for answering one simple, yet deeply complex question: How can we use our resources to help others the most? It is both a research field and a practical community that seeks to move beyond traditional, often emotion-driven, charitable giving. Instead of donating to a local university or a familiar cause, an effective altruist uses rigorous analysis to identify and fund the interventions that save or improve the most lives per dollar spent.
This approach often leads to conclusions that can seem counterintuitive. For example, an EA analysis might determine that donating to distribute anti-malaria bed nets in sub-Saharan Africa, a highly cost-effective intervention, will save more lives than donating the same amount to a state-of-the-art children’s hospital in the United States. The goal is to be cause-neutral, letting the data, not personal attachment, guide the decision.
The Core Principles: Scale, Tractability, and Neglectedness
To evaluate where to direct resources, effective altruists often rely on a three-part framework. First, they consider the scale of a problem. A problem affecting billions of people, like climate change or pandemic preparedness, is considered higher-scale than one affecting a few thousand.
Second, they assess tractability, which asks how solvable a problem is. If additional resources can make significant progress, a problem is considered tractable. A cause where a solution is known and effective, like vitamin A supplementation to prevent childhood blindness, is highly tractable.
Finally, they look at neglectedness. A cause that receives little attention or funding from other philanthropists or governments is considered neglected. By focusing on neglected areas, a new donor can have a much greater marginal impact than they would by adding to an already crowded field.
From Thought Experiment to Global Movement
The intellectual roots of EA stretch back to utilitarian philosophers, most notably Australian ethicist Peter Singer. In his 1972 essay “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Singer presented a now-famous thought experiment: if you see a child drowning in a shallow pond, you have a moral obligation to wade in and save them, even if it means ruining your expensive shoes. He argued that, by extension, we have a similar obligation to save the lives of people far away when we can do so at a relatively small cost to ourselves.
This idea was further developed and formalized in the 21st century by Oxford philosophers Toby Ord and William MacAskill, who co-founded key organizations that helped build EA into a global community. Their work provided the intellectual scaffolding for a movement that resonated deeply with a new generation seeking a more rational and impactful way to engage with the world’s problems.
The Silicon Valley Connection: Why Tech Embraced EA
The principles of Effective Altruism found an exceptionally receptive audience in Silicon Valley. The movement’s emphasis on data, metrics, optimization, and scalability is the native language of software engineers, venture capitalists, and tech founders. They are trained to disrupt inefficient systems, and they saw traditional philanthropy as a prime target for a data-driven overhaul.
For a culture obsessed with “return on investment” (ROI), EA offered a framework for philanthropic ROI. It transformed the often-messy world of charity into a quantifiable system, an algorithm for doing good that could be debugged and optimized just like a piece of code. This promised to remove the guesswork and emotional bias from giving, appealing to a desire for logic and control.
“Earning to Give”: The Controversial Career Path
One of the most distinctive and controversial ideas to emerge from the EA movement is “earning to give.” This concept suggests that for some talented individuals, the most effective way to help the world is not to work directly for a charity, but to pursue a highly lucrative career—for instance, in finance or tech—with the explicit goal of donating a significant portion of their income.
Sam Bankman-Fried became the poster child for this philosophy. He openly stated that he entered the world of cryptocurrency trading not out of a passion for finance, but because he believed it was the fastest way to accumulate a massive fortune that he could then give away to effective causes. For a time, his immense wealth and philanthropic pledges seemed to validate the “earning to give” model, inspiring countless young people to consider similar paths.
Key Figures and Institutions
Beyond Bankman-Fried, the most significant force in EA philanthropy has been Dustin Moskovitz and his wife, Cari Tuna. Through their foundation, Open Philanthropy, and their close collaboration with the charity evaluator GiveWell, they have directed billions of dollars toward causes identified through rigorous EA principles. GiveWell, in particular, has become a central institution, publishing detailed research and a short list of “top charities” that it believes offer donors the most impact for their money.
Other tech leaders, including Skype co-founder Jaan Tallinn and figures within major companies like Google, have also become prominent supporters. They have funded a growing ecosystem of EA-aligned organizations focused on everything from global health and animal welfare to the long-term risks posed by artificial intelligence.
The Promises and Pitfalls of a Quantified World
The promise of Effective Altruism is undeniable. It has successfully steered hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars toward proven, life-saving interventions that were previously underfunded. The work of top-rated charities like the Against Malaria Foundation and Helen Keller International, which have received massive funding boosts thanks to EA, has saved countless lives and prevented immense suffering.
By asking hard questions about impact, the movement has forced the entire non-profit sector to become more transparent and accountable. Donors are increasingly demanding evidence that their contributions are making a real difference, a positive shift spurred largely by the rise of EA.
The Shadow of FTX: A Crisis of Credibility
The movement’s ascent was violently halted in November 2022 with the collapse of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX and the subsequent arrest of Sam Bankman-Fried on charges of fraud. As EA’s most visible and vocal billionaire proponent, his downfall plunged the community into an existential crisis. Critics immediately questioned whether the movement’s hyper-rational, ends-justify-the-means ethos had created a permission structure for unethical behavior.
The scandal raised uncomfortable questions. Did the focus on maximizing impact, quantified in dollars, lead to a form of moral licensing where personal ethics could be compromised in service of a greater good? The alleged misuse of customer funds at FTX, even if intended to be eventually donated, struck at the very heart of the movement’s claim to moral and intellectual superiority.
Criticisms of the EA Framework
Even before the FTX scandal, Effective Altruism faced sharp criticism. One major area of contention is “long-termism,” a branch of EA that argues the highest-priority cause is ensuring the long-term survival and flourishing of humanity. This leads to a focus on mitigating existential risks like rogue AI or engineered pandemics, which critics argue diverts urgent funding from people suffering today.
The movement has also been criticized for its perceived elitism and lack of diversity. Its leadership and core community are predominantly white, male, and educated at elite universities, raising concerns that its priorities reflect a narrow worldview. This can lead to a technocratic approach that overlooks the importance of systemic change, social justice, and community-led solutions that are harder to quantify in a spreadsheet.
Finally, there is the measurement problem. While it is relatively easy to count the number of lives saved by a vaccine, it is much harder to measure the value of art, the strength of a community, or the impact of political advocacy. Critics worry that by focusing only on what can be easily measured, EA risks devaluing essential aspects of human flourishing that do not fit neatly into its utilitarian calculus.
The Future of Doing Good: Beyond the Hype and Scandal
In the wake of the FTX disaster, the Effective Altruism movement is at a crossroads. Its leaders are engaged in a period of intense soul-searching, grappling with how to rebuild trust and address the movement’s blind spots. Many are now emphasizing the importance of character, integrity, and common-sense ethics alongside quantitative analysis.
The challenge for EA is to evolve beyond its association with Silicon Valley excess and hubris. It must prove that its core insights can be integrated into a more holistic and humble approach to philanthropy—one that values both data and diverse human experience, and that understands that how you achieve your goals matters just as much as what those goals are.
While its reputation has been tarnished, Effective Altruism has permanently changed the landscape of modern philanthropy. The fundamental question it poses—how to do the most good—remains as powerful and relevant as ever. The future of the movement will depend on its ability to learn from its most painful failure, broaden its perspective, and demonstrate that a rational approach to compassion can, and must, be grounded in unwavering integrity.
