Is it possible to do a million times more good with your money than an average person in a high-income country? Is it possible to donate money to charities in such a way that you do as much good as all the good done by all charitable donations by a million people in a city like Amsterdam? Based on my research in ethics and economics, I argue that the answer is: likely yes.
The ethical question: what is doing good?
Mild welfarism is a hybrid moral theory, or rather a set of theories, that encompasses both utilitarianism (consequentialism) and deontology. According to the 2009 PhilPaper survey, a majority of philosophers who are not undecided, accept or lean towards consequentialism, deontology or an intermediate view. Hence, mild welfarism might be a set of theories that lie closest to the most preferred theories by most people. Two prime objectives of mild welfarism are increasing as much as possible the total welfare (this is the utilitarian part) and avoiding as much as possible the violations of the right not to be used as a means against one’s will (this is the deontological part).[i]
To avoid unwanted arbitrariness, the welfare of every individual counts equally. This includes non-human animal welfare. But ‘counting equally’ and summing the welfare of individuals require comparing the welfare levels of different individuals. The welfare of two individuals cannot be added if their welfare was not mutually comparable. To avoid unwanted arbitrariness again, the morally relevant, interpersonally comparable welfare level of an individual is given by the average of the estimated relative welfare levels of that individual, whereby the average runs over all moral agents, i.e. all individuals who can estimate welfare levels of others. Those moral agents have to estimate the individual’s welfare behind a veil of ignorance (as if they do not know which individual they will be). The relative welfare of an individual is the welfare of that individual divided by the highest welfare that any individual could possibly have according to the moral agent.
According to a survey (representative sample of Belgian population), the relative welfare level of an average farmed broiler chicken is negative and equal in size to the positive relative welfare of an average person in a high income country like Belgium. These survey results offer the best (most democratic) estimates of chicken and human welfare and hence the best comparison of chicken versus human welfare.
Applying mild welfarism, we can conclude that avoiding the existence of 10 broiler chickens is at least as good as increasing the lifespan of an average human by one year, for several reasons.
- A broiler chicken lives six weeks. Hence, the duration of negative experiences of 10 broiler chickens is more than a year.
- Farmed animals not only experience a negative welfare, but also their rights are violated. In particular, they are used as a means against their will. From a deontological perspective, this violation of the right not to be used as merely a means is worse than the violation of the right to live (the right not to die a year earlier). Hence, a non-zero deontological inclination in one’s moral theory entails that the welfare loss from using an individual (e.g. the suffering of a farmed animal) counts more than an equal sized welfare loss of an individual that is not used as a means (e.g. a premature death from a deadly disease).
- An average human on earth may have a lower welfare than an average human in a high income country.
The economic question: how to effectively do good?
I estimated that donating one euro to research and development of cultivated meat (or alternative, animal-free protein that could replace broiler chicken meat) spares the lives of at least 10 farmed animals (mostly broiler chickens). In terms of amount of animal suffering avoided per euro donated, this may be 100 times more than the average of all animal advocacy. In comparison, GiveWell’s top recommended charities can safe a human life at a cost of 5000 euro. Assuming saving a life extends the lifespan by 50 years, this corresponds with 100 euro per life year saved. In other words, donating to the most effective animal charities (e.g. those that develop alternative protein), increases the total welfare 100 times more than donating to the most effective human development charities. Other animal welfare campaigns (e.g. corporate campaigns for chicken welfare) and animal charities (e.g. the Shrimp Welfare Project) are also estimated to be at least 100 times more cost-effective than GiveWell’s top charities.
How do GiveWell’s top charities compare to the average and the majority of charities people donate to? Many studies indicate that the most effective interventions in a problem area (such as education, poverty or health) are often 100 times more cost-effective than the majority and the average of interventions in that area. This could apply to charities as well. Concerning health: saving an extra human life in a high-income country will cost more than a million euros (by investments in better public health care, road safety,…). This is more than 100 times as expensive as saving a life in a low-income country by a GiveWell top recommended charity.
How much do people in high-income countries donate to charities on average? In many European countries, households donate around 0.5% of their net income to charities.[ii]
Conclusion
Assuming you have an average income in a high-income country:
- if you donate 50% of your income (which is 100 times more than an average person),
- to fund the most cost-effective interventions (which are at least 100 times as cost-effective as most other interventions in the same problem),
- implemented by charities that focus on reducing farmed animal suffering (which is at least 100 times as impactful as improving human welfare),
you can do 100x100x100 or a million times as much good as an average person. You can find those charities at Animal Charities Evaluator and the Giving What We Can Animal Welfare Fund (Belgium: Effectief Geven; the Netherlands: Doneer Effectief).
[i] More technically, the principle of mild welfarism reads: Choose the option that maximizes the expected total welfare (the weighted sum of each individual’s strength of preference for that option, summed over all individuals who ever exist or could exist in that option, weighted by the probability of existence of the individual), whereby those individuals who could increase the total welfare a bit further against the will of someone else do not exist and those individuals who do or could increase the total welfare a bit further against the will of someone of their own do not have to exist.
[ii] For example, in Belgium the average donation by an adult person is €200 per year, which is 0.7% of the average adult per capita net income. In the Netherlands, people donate 0.4% of their net income to charities.
Executive summary: This exploratory analysis argues that individuals in high-income countries could plausibly do up to a million times more good than the average donor by giving 50% of their income to the most cost-effective animal charities—particularly those reducing farmed animal suffering through alternative protein development—based on a hybrid moral theory ("mild welfarism") and cost-effectiveness comparisons across charitable interventions.
Key points:
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.