Radical generosity emphasizes a deep commitment to giving and sharing, often going beyond traditional notions of charity or philanthropy. It involves a willingness to make significant sacrifices in order to create positive change in the lives of others and to address systemic issues. As human beings, we have an obligation to be generous to others both inside and outside our moral circle.[1] Extending generosity beyond one's immediate moral circle reflects a commitment to universal values and the well-being of all human beings, regardless of their proximity or familiarity. 

Effective altruism accentuates the significance of effecting meaningful positive changes with one's resources and endeavors, particularly in tackling urgent global predicaments such as poverty, inequality, and health crises. Radical generosity complements this objective by advocating for a mindset and practice of giving that transcends conventional charity norms.

While the concept of effective altruism has gained traction in affluent nations, this commendable innovative approach to philanthropy is gradually taking root in the Global South. Many regions in the Global South confront systemic challenges like poverty, inadequate access to fundamental resources, and limited opportunities for healthcare and education. Nonetheless, the unique circumstances in these nations necessitate an adaptation of the principles of effective altruism, with radical generosity being a prominent feature of this adaptation.

For instance, the widely known “earn to give” notion, derived from the premise of radical generosity, is less likely to find widespread support in the Global South. The "earn to give" notion primarily revolves around monetary contributions to effective charities making it more feasible for affluent nations given the numerous well-paid jobs. In contrast, securing a comparatively high-paying job in the Global South is a privilege reserved for a small, highly educated, or skilled minority, and even then, earnings fall significantly short of the average incomes in affluent nations.  However, having fewer proponents of the earn-to-give notion is not a reflection of the generosity of individuals in the Global South. In fact, as per the World Giving Index 2022, African nations consistently rank among the most generous globally. While the monetary contributions from African nations might be less compared to wealthier countries, African nations notably rank higher in terms of donation and volunteering. If you ask me, exhibiting generosity without the cushion of a high-paying job is a far more radical stance. 

To avoid underestimating the contributions of effective altruists in the Global South, careful reasoning must be invested in tailoring the principles of effective altruism to fit the diverse social, cultural, and economic contexts. Moreover, it's vital to acknowledge that generosity extends beyond monetary contributions and encompasses sharing skills, presence, support, advocacy, and mentorship. Africa, in particular, thrives on community-driven giving, where individuals pool their resources to support others. Noteworthy cultural practices that emphasize communal giving include South Africa's 'Ubuntu,' Kenya's 'Harambee,' and Nigeria's 'Ajo.' These established cultural practices not only foster unity but also nurture a culture of generosity.

These seemingly modest practices wield tangible effects on individuals' lives as well as the communities they belong to. Broadening our comprehension of generosity empowers us to make substantial contributions while addressing the distinctive challenges of various societies. Moreover, this approach sidesteps the impersonal and transactional nature that can accompany monetary contributions.

In conclusion, perceptions of effective altruism and radical generosity can differ within the Global South, given its multifaceted nature shaped by diverse social, cultural, and economic contexts. Therefore, engaging in all-encompassing and respectful dialogues, considering local perspectives and priorities, is imperative when deliberating on effectiveness. By intertwining and embracing the principles of effective altruism with a Global South perspective, radical generosity can evolve into a potent catalyst for constructive change.

However, this isn't meant to discourage those who can afford monetary donations. Rather its intention is to expand our comprehension of generosity and to illustrate how generosity takes shape in the Global South. As the Swahili saying goes, 'Kutoa ni suala la utayari tu, sio mali,' meaning 'Giving is a matter of willingness, not wealth.'


 

  1. ^

     A person’s “moral circle” classically refers to the entities that that person perceives as having moral standing, or as being worthy of moral concern. And “moral circle expansion” classically refers to moral circles moving “outwards”, for example from kin to people of other races to nonhuman animals, such that “more distant” entities are now in one’s “circle of concern”.


     

21

0
0

Reactions

0
0

More posts like this

Comments4


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

An interesting read. Thank you for highlighting this perspective, Wanjiru!

I read your article and it was amazing! I loved how well-written and informative it was. Great job!

Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 23m read
 · 
Or on the types of prioritization, their strengths, pitfalls, and how EA should balance them   The cause prioritization landscape in EA is changing. Prominent groups have shut down, others have been founded, and everyone is trying to figure out how to prepare for AI. This is the first in a series of posts examining the state of cause prioritization and proposing strategies for moving forward.   Executive Summary * Performing prioritization work has been one of the main tasks, and arguably achievements, of EA. * We highlight three types of prioritization: Cause Prioritization, Within-Cause (Intervention) Prioritization, and Cross-Cause (Intervention) Prioritization. * We ask how much of EA prioritization work falls in each of these categories: * Our estimates suggest that, for the organizations we investigated, the current split is 89% within-cause work, 2% cross-cause, and 9% cause prioritization. * We then explore strengths and potential pitfalls of each level: * Cause prioritization offers a big-picture view for identifying pressing problems but can fail to capture the practical nuances that often determine real-world success. * Within-cause prioritization focuses on a narrower set of interventions with deeper more specialised analysis but risks missing higher-impact alternatives elsewhere. * Cross-cause prioritization broadens the scope to find synergies and the potential for greater impact, yet demands complex assumptions and compromises on measurement. * See the Summary Table below to view the considerations. * We encourage reflection and future work on what the best ways of prioritizing are and how EA should allocate resources between the three types. * With this in mind, we outline eight cruxes that sketch what factors could favor some types over others. * We also suggest some potential next steps aimed at refining our approach to prioritization by exploring variance, value of information, tractability, and the
 ·  · 1m read
 · 
I wanted to share a small but important challenge I've encountered as a student engaging with Effective Altruism from a lower-income country (Nigeria), and invite thoughts or suggestions from the community. Recently, I tried to make a one-time donation to one of the EA-aligned charities listed on the Giving What We Can platform. However, I discovered that I could not donate an amount less than $5. While this might seem like a minor limit for many, for someone like me — a student without a steady income or job, $5 is a significant amount. To provide some context: According to Numbeo, the average monthly income of a Nigerian worker is around $130–$150, and students often rely on even less — sometimes just $20–$50 per month for all expenses. For many students here, having $5 "lying around" isn't common at all; it could represent a week's worth of meals or transportation. I personally want to make small, one-time donations whenever I can, rather than commit to a recurring pledge like the 10% Giving What We Can pledge, which isn't feasible for me right now. I also want to encourage members of my local EA group, who are in similar financial situations, to practice giving through small but meaningful donations. In light of this, I would like to: * Recommend that Giving What We Can (and similar platforms) consider allowing smaller minimum donation amounts to make giving more accessible to students and people in lower-income countries. * Suggest that more organizations be added to the platform, to give donors a wider range of causes they can support with their small contributions. Uncertainties: * Are there alternative platforms or methods that allow very small one-time donations to EA-aligned charities? * Is there a reason behind the $5 minimum that I'm unaware of, and could it be adjusted to be more inclusive? I strongly believe that cultivating a habit of giving, even with small amounts, helps build a long-term culture of altruism — and it would