Being Good in a World of Need

Abstract

Ours is a rich world filled with misery. This gives rise to a pressing question: how should the well-off respond to the needy? Peter Singer famously argued that just as we have an obligation to save a drowning child, we have an obligation to support charities like Oxfam. Inspired by Singer, Effective Altruism holds that we ought to support those charities doing the most good. Being Good in a World of Need powerfully challenges these views. Drawing on many sources, Temkin illustrates many disanalogies between saving a drowning child and supporting international charities, involving: intervening agents; effects of one’s actions; corruption; responsibility; accidents versus injustice; and aid beneficiaries. These disanalogies raise complex issues requiring a pluralistic approach, rather than Effective Altruism’s monistic, “do the most good” approach. Being Good discusses: ways aid may reward corrupt leaders and incentivize disastrous policies; charities ignoring or covering up negative impacts; the ethical disaster of aid efforts in Goma; brain and character drains; difficulties in replicability or scaling up model aid projects; ethical imperialism, paternalism, autonomy, and respect; Angus Deaton’s contention that aid undermines government responsiveness; Jeffrey Sachs and the Millennium Villages Project; conflicts between individual and collective morality; fairness and responsibility; focusing on badly off people rather than countries; humanitarian versus development aid; and ways of aiding other than on-the-ground charities. Being Good reinforces Temkin’s longstanding view that, morally, the well-off can’t ignore the needy. Unfortunately, what one should do given that truth is much more complex, and murky, than most have realized.