From the archive · October 16, 2026
The comparison inside a good intention
How should helping change when the same resources could help more elsewhere?
01 · Word
Effective Altruism
Pronounced ih-FEK-tiv AL-troo-iz-um
noun
An approach to helping others that uses evidence and reasoning to compare where resources can do the most good
Examples
Effective altruism asks what another use of the same donation might achieve.
An effective-altruism comparison must examine its assumptions as carefully as its final ranking.
Origin
The name describes both an intellectual project and a modern movement. Its central question joins altruistic concern with comparison across possible actions. It does not mean that anyone using the label has already demonstrated effectiveness or settled every disagreement about what counts as good.
02 · Idea
Good intentions leave a choice unresolved
Two programs can both help while producing very different benefits from the same budget. Choosing between them requires asking what would happen without the intervention, how strong the evidence is, and whether more funding would still produce additional benefit. A persuasive story about one beneficiary cannot answer all those questions.
Effective altruism extends this comparative approach to donations and other choices. Charity evaluation makes one application concrete: examine outcomes rather than treating low administrative spending or an appealing mission statement as sufficient proof. The comparison concerns consequences, not just the donor's sincerity.
A generous choice still has an alternative.
Compare the additional good your next contribution could make.
Limits
Numbers do not remove ethical disagreement. Different people may value outcomes differently, and easily measured benefits can crowd out important but uncertain ones. Estimated impact also does not excuse deception or other harmful means. A ranking is an argument with assumptions, not a moral permission slip.
03 · Moment
Donors ask for evidence they cannot find
United States, 2007; GiveWell is founded
Karnofsky and Hassenfeld wanted to compare charities using evidence about what their activities accomplished. Their inquiries found that readily available information often did not answer the questions they considered most useful. They founded GiveWell to investigate giving opportunities and publish the reasoning behind recommendations.
- Founders
- Holden Karnofsky and Elie Hassenfeld
- Year
- 2007
- Project
- Charity research
The caveat
GiveWell's history is an organization's account of its own development, not an independent certification of every recommendation. It illustrates one strand of evidence-focused philanthropy and does not represent the entire effective altruism movement.
The project made a donor's counterfactual visible: money used here cannot simultaneously support another program. Its later account of changing research methods also describes revisions in how it sought promising opportunities. Evaluation itself needed to remain open to learning.
The connection
Evaluating alternatives can improve altruistic choices, but measurement and moral judgment remain necessary parts of the comparison.