Why Peter Singer is wrong about 'effective altruism'

If the complexity of social justice was a matter of simple statistics – so called 'value for money', if you could truly compare apples with apples, if the world was flat, smooth and square rather than being lumpy and sort of spherical, Singer's simplistic notions of 'value for money' might hold.

Not once were small, new, emerging organisations mentioned

In this complex environment a variety of approaches is needed. Not once in Singer's speech were small, specialised organisations mentioned. His entire focus was on, and indirectly a promotion for, big charities on the basis of simplistic notions of efficiency or 'value for money'. I have nothing against these behemoths but they already take the lion's share of funding – private and public. Their staff are well paid (community sector wages). Yet, no one would argue that they can deal adequately with all the problems we face.

Singer's focus on 'effective' which he interprets as a simple conversion of the number of units of product or service (mosquito nets or blindness operations) per dollar spent, simply denies the value and importance of the work of small organisations and the importance of, for example, one-on-one therapy with damaged young people, which will never meet ROI measures. When asked about the small population of Australian aboriginals with eye disease compared with the thousands of Africans, Singer fudged the question by indicating that he felt in Australia – a rich country – it was a government responsibility. (See my comment above about governments, wealth and the social sector above!). When challenged, it seems, Singer could not defend his own simplistic logic.

Effective altruism diverts attention from the complexity of the problem

The unintended consequence of Peter Singer's talk is that it purports to provide a road map for effective altruism, yet it diverts attention away from the complexity that needs to be considered in evaluating social justice work. It is a 'sin of omission' which I would expect someone in Singer's position to be aware of and sensitive to.

Simplistic notions such as his easily become justifications that potential donors can use to make their first (and often only) evaluation of a potential charity - on the basis of efficient return - pushing them towards large, established organisations and away from small, targeted and emerging organisations or those whose clients have intensive, high cost needs. Once that sort of simple benchmark is created in people's minds, it forms a barrier to a comprehensive assessment an organisation's work and the outcomes it achieves.

Singer's audience is influenced by his public standing and his opinions. His simple logic and easy answers are beguilingly attractive. Yet there is no rule that says a charity must be efficient or profitable to be effective. There is such a rule in commerce (though even there it has nuances). And there is no rule that says you can or should choose your charity on the basis of a so-called 'objective measure' of value for money, as Singer claims. Were that the case, almost all the social justice organisations that work with the homeless, with abuse victims, with various therapies and in caring would simply fail the test.

It is vital that we argue vehemently against those who use only logic and rationality as their weapons of argument because they create a world of 'easy' answers that overlook complexity. In the end they damage the causes they aim to support.