Editor’s Note: One of the many issues Christians wrestle with is how to best answer the biblical imperative to care for the poor. From Genesis to Revelation, God’s abiding concern for the poor, and his expectation that we as Christians share his concern, is clear. How do we care for “the least of these” to the best of our abilities while making wise use of the resources given to us to help bring about flourishing for everyone? How can Christians provide effective aid while avoiding pitfalls like “donation dumping“? Drs. Jay Richards and Anne Bradley recently authored an op-ed appearing in The Daily Caller, in which they bring a biblical and economic perspective to the “effective altruism” movement that is growing as a response to poverty in the world. Their article is republished below.
Enterprise Is the Most “Effective Altruism”
There’s a new movement afoot among talented Ivy League grads, who are joining Wall Street in order to make scads of money to give away philanthropically.
These young people might seem inspired by John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, who advised the faithful to make all you can, save all you can, and give all you can. Not bad advice. But these graduates are responding to a call from controversial ethicist Peter Singer.
In a recent TED talk, Singer referenced the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and their philosophy that “All Lives Have Equal Value.” In light of that, Singer suggested, people in wealthy countries should not just focus on helping each other, but should also stretch our giving to those in the much less developed world.
As Christians, we agree with the Gates’ motto that all [human] lives have equal value, but we’re skeptical of Singer’s hyper-utilitarian approach, which he calls “Effective Altruism.” His is an artificially mathematical and abstract way of dispensing help. In effect, it treats individuals as commodities to whom we deliver units of charity.
But the most effective charity treats individuals not just as mouths to feed, but as whole and particular persons, with material, moral, cultural, and spiritual needs. That process can’t be reduced to an impersonal utilitarian calculus.
The other problem with this Singer-inspired movement is economic rather than philosophical. “Effective Altruism” encourages young and old to pursue the jobs that earn the highest paycheck for the sole purpose of giving most of their income away philanthropically.
This treats philanthropy as if it were the only, or at least the most effective, way to act altruistically—that is, for the benefit of others. It also implies that business pursued for its own purpose is morally suspect.
In reality, the primary way widespread poverty is alleviated is with plain vanilla factors such as business, hard work, property rights, a reliable dispensation of justice, and enterprise.
The Gates Foundation has saved an estimated 5 million lives thus far. But we rarely hear of the countless lives saved or improved by the profit-seeking activities of Microsoft. It’s not clear how we could even measure the total effects.
One effect is the Foundation itself. To be able to start such a large aid organization Bill Gates first had to be a successful entrepreneur. As a philanthropist, Gates is not “giving back” to the world, as if he had taken from it in the first place. His philanthropic giving is possible only because he first “gave” as an entrepreneur.
Perhaps only God knows what Gates’s motives were as a businessman; but there’s no evidence that it was inspired by anything like Singer’s “Effective Altruism.” For all we know, the software billionaire was motivated just by self-interest and a desire for profits.
Still, he and Microsoft succeeded only because they provided value for hundreds of millions of people. Gates had to meet the needs of his customers better than his competitors could. And to stay ahead, he had to invest wisely rather than consume or give away all the profits.
A healthy market economy can channel not just compassion but also self-interest into outcomes beneficial to others. This is how wealth is created and accumulated in free societies.
It’s the same story in the developing world. Because of increased global trade and market liberalization, the number of people suffering from “absolute poverty” has been reduced by half in the last twenty years. YaleGlobal reports that we are in the fastest period of poverty reduction that the world has ever seen.
Free exchange between countries is not a zero-sum game. It allows our work to serve others by focusing on things we do well and relatively inexpensively—our comparative advantages—while trading for other goods and services. This is why most of us purchase imported coffee beans rather than growing the trees ourselves.
So why do over a billion people still suffer absolute poverty? Because their societies are beset by corruption, lawlessness, a lack of property rights, and no small amount of despotism. They’re cut off from global markets, often by their own and other governments. Even if they work their fingers to the bone, most will stay poor until these impediments are removed.
Of course charity has a roll to play, especially in emergencies; but charity outside the discipline of free exchange is not a sustainable way to lift countries out of poverty. We could give away all the wealth of the richest on the planet. It might provide some short-term relief for the destitute, but unless that wealth is leveraged by large markets, it won’t give rise to widespread wealth creation.
Truly free markets unleash human creativity and ingenuity. They channel our legitimate self-interest, allow our labor to become productive, and compel us to serve others in order to improve our own lot. That’s effective altruism.
Dr. Anne Bradley co-wrote this op-ed. You can also read the piece over at the Daily Caller.
Leave your comments here.