Respond to Peter Singer's Effective Altruism

Effective Altruism can be considered as a quite new ethical movement that emerge lately to respond to worlds greatest need. The foundation of effective altruism is moral reasoning that aim for the most good one can possibly make. To be a good proponent of it, one does not need to cling to a particular religion. This philosophy drive people to work and gain as much as possible for the reason of giving as much as possible eventually. Peter Singer in his book in his book The most good thing you can do wrote that to be effective altruist, one need to have a strong ability to reason yet it does not suppress passion (Alturist passion is the passion for the effective altruism itself). In addition, Effective altruism may not be utilitarian but they concern about number, as Singer would argue. 

What we can found regarding this ethics is actually interesting to be analyzed further. To bear in mind, Altruism itself actually is not a totally new concept. In ancient religious tradition there is already the fragmentary element of it. Scholar like Charles Kahn has taken the concept from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics no 8 and 9 to present the altruist theory which he argue that we need to use our reason to maximizes of human friendship in others.

Generally, Altruism can be considered as selfless activity. For those who said that altruism is contradictory in term does not understand it well. Selfless here may not and should not be interpreted as kind of ''being''/self/entity but selfless here is the idea that one live a life that not only for their own sake and benefit. Others is the king, and thus, one need to live a life of self-sacrificing for the goal of human flourishing. More or less this what we can say about altruist trajectory. As a Chrstian, I have an intrest make the comparison between the two. 

Regarding the demand. In Christian faith, altruist is not only an option (non-Christian does not have an obligation to adopt Effective allturism philoaophy) but an obligation, or a kind of responsibility to God since He has given the faith to those who believe in Him. Russel L. Wilson says, 

''Christianity emphasizes acts of love or charity to demonstrate one's faith in God.'' 

Regarding the output, no doubt that there is a correlation between the effective altruist action with Christian act of altruism. The difference is that Christianity offer the moral force and also it even radically pushes the ethical act to its limit. In other words, one does not just distribute their money to charity, or donating their organ for those in need but more than that, one need to give their own life (their whole being and existence) if necessary as Jesus Christ says, ''Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.'' 

Regarding the foundation, although effective altruism might get the good outcome, the foundation is weak. We cannot deny that reason is a good instrument for ethics. However, reason need to be guided otherwise, we will see the wrong use of reason. To set the reason as the foundation of altruist behavior is good but not good enough. Moreover, from which the ''obligation'' of helping those in need come if there is no ultimate ground for the obligation in the first place? What if there is political ideology come in play let say, America has a strong tension with China. Surely, the effective altruist from America won't donate their money to poor people in China. Unless effective altruism can provide a stronger foundation that is to say human sanctity, regardless their race, skin color ideology. If they claim that Effective alturist care for human being in general, it will becoming contradictory with their numerical philosophy. Is it better to help poor enemy than not?

What also interest me is also critique provided by Thomas Wells. He pointed out that Effective Altruism actually focused more on ''efficiency'' rather than ''effectiveness.''

Peter Singer wrote,“Effective altruists … know that saving a life is better than making a wish come true and that saving three lives is better than saving one. So they don’t give to whatever cause tugs strongest at their heartstrings. They give to the cause that will do the most good, given the abilities, time, and money they have.” 

Regarding the effectiveness. what Wells discovered in what Singer propose above that is that Effective altruism focus more on the efficiency that is to say, the altruist will only donate to the organization that will bring greatest outcome  from the resources people give. If 5000 dollars can save 5 person from dying from Malaria, it better to do so than using 5000 dollar to save 1 people from dying from AIDS. Pragmatically,  we can say it is a justifiable and reasonable act. But, altruism only concern about the ''process of flourishing'' but they are not dealing with the main cause of the problem which is more crucial, as Wells wrote,

''altruism provides no plan for the elimination of poverty itself, and there is no way for a feasible plan for that goal to be developed and implemented by this method of reasoning at the margin.''

Christianity cares about the source of the problem more than effective altruism philosophy, and it is because of sin and human depravity. Sin causes people to kill, destroy, trick and hurt each other. This is the main cause of every bad thing that happened in the world, let say poverty. Not just true Christianity will naturally practice effective altruism, they will also will educate and spread the greatest new ever to which the effective altruism grant its firm foundation and resolution, yes, it is found in the beauty of the cross of Jesus Christ!