Is Ethics the Blind Spot in Effective Altruism?

Effective Altruism (EA) claims to maximize good through evidence-based interventions, grounded in utilitarian calculations. While this sounds ethically rigorous, it may have some ethical blind spots. Let's explore why its technocratic, utilitarian approach may miss essential moral considerations, especially when viewed through the lens of Simon Blackburn’s philosophy.

1. The Myopia of Future Risks

EA often prioritizes speculative risks such as AI domination or pandemics, which may or may not happen. Blackburn would argue that focusing on future possibilities can distract from present moral obligations. Ethical action, in his view, is about responding to the current suffering we see around us—poverty, inequality, and environmental crises. By putting these immediate concerns on the back burner, EA risks failing in its duty to meet the ethical demands of the present.

2. Utilitarian Efficiency vs. Ethical Pluralism

EA’s heavy reliance on utilitarianism, where actions are judged solely by outcomes, oversimplifies moral dilemmas. Blackburn critiques such single-minded approaches, suggesting that moral thinking should recognize the plurality of values—including fairness, justice, and respect for individual rights. EA’s focus on "maximum impact" may inadvertently sideline these ethical considerations when they are difficult to quantify.

3. Power and Responsibility

Effective Altruism’s influence is concentrated among wealthy tech entrepreneurs who direct where resources should go, raising serious ethical concerns. Blackburn’s critique of moral realism would highlight that ethical judgments should be democratic and reflective of shared human values, not imposed by an elite few. The current model risks creating a moral hierarchy, where the preferences of a select group define what is ethically important for everyone else, undermining the moral autonomy of communities.

4. Neglecting Local Context

EA often funds interventions like malaria nets, focusing on large-scale impact, but frequently overlooks local knowledge and cultural nuances. Blackburn would argue that ethical behavior demands attention to context, relationships, and dialogue. Ethical decisions must emerge from engagement with the people directly affected, ensuring that their voices and values shape the process.

5. The Earn-to-Give Dilemma

EA’s "earn-to-give" strategy—where individuals justify working in morally questionable industries by promising to donate later—reflects an ends-justify-the-means mindset that Blackburn would find problematic. He stresses that the moral quality of an action cannot be separated from how it’s done. Pursuing wealth through harmful practices, even if later donated, is ethically inconsistent and risks perpetuating harm for short-term gain.

The Ethical Blind Spot

Simon Blackburn’s philosophical framework suggests that Effective Altruism overlooks the richness of ethical life by focusing too narrowly on efficiency and long-term goals. True ethical action requires not just calculating impacts but also honoring human dignity, respecting diversity of values, and addressing immediate moral challenges. EA’s vision can evolve by integrating ethical pluralism, making it a movement that not only looks to future benefits but acts with fairness and empathy today.

Tom Kostrzewa Partner at AllyAllez GmbH Helping SMEs redefine their role as service providers with Service Intelligence and Ethical Change Management.

#EthicalChangeManagement #EffectiveAltruism #HumanDignity #EthicalLeadership