I can’t recall the last time I read a book in one sitting, but that’s what happened with Moral Ambition by bestselling author Rutger Bregman. I read the German edition, though it’s also available in Dutch (see James Herbert's Quick Take). An English release is slated for May.
The book opens with the statement: “The greatest waste of our times is the waste of talent.” From there, Bregman builds a compelling case for privileged individuals to leave their “bullshit jobs” and tackle the world’s most pressing challenges. He weaves together narratives spanning historical movements like abolitionism, suffrage, and civil rights through to contemporary initiatives such as Against Malaria Foundation, Charity Entrepreneurship, LEEP, and the Shrimp Welfare Project.
If you’ve been engaged with EA ideas, much of this will sound familiar, but I initially didn’t expect to enjoy the book as much as I did. However, Bregman’s skill as a storyteller and his knack for balancing theory and narrative make Moral Ambition a fascinating read. He reframes EA concepts in a more accessible way, such as replacing “counterfactuals” with the sports acronym “VORP” (Value Over Replacement Player). His use of stories and examples, paired with over 500 footnotes for details, makes the book approachable without sacrificing depth.
I had some initial reservations. The book draws heavily on examples from the EA community but rarely engages directly with the movement, mentioning EA mainly in the context of FTX. The final chapter also promotes Bregman’s own initiative, The School for Moral Ambition. However, the school’s values closely align with core EA principles. The ITN framework and pitches for major EA cause areas are in the book, albeit with varying levels of depth.
Having finished the book, I can appreciate its approach. Moral Ambition feels like a more pragmatic, less theory-heavy version of EA. The School for Moral Ambition has attracted better-known figures in Germany, such as the political economist Maja Göpel and social entrepreneur Waldemar Zeiler, who haven’t previously been associated with EA. I’ve started recommending the book to people I’d like to introduce to career-impact ideas, especially those who might prefer a story-driven, lighter entry point over something like 80,000 Hours.
It will be interesting to see how the book fares in the U.S., where Bregman recently relocated and has already received some press. Perhaps Moral Ambition can help preserve and propagate EA ideals in a post-FTX era or complement existing brands like Charity Entrepreneurship, Giving What We Can, and 80,000 Hours.
That said, there’s a notable difference in approach. While Moral Ambition incorporates many EA principles, it steers readers toward its own School of Moral Ambition rather than EA organizations. For instance, 80,000 Hours—a natural fit for this topic—gets just a single footnote. This contrasts with EA’s collaborative spirit, where mutual recommendation and shared resources are the norm.
The School of Moral Ambition adds value by broadening the reach of EA-inspired ideas. However, if the EA movement were to shift toward a model with more independent entities and less collaboration, it could risk losing some of its unique strengths.
Thanks for writing this Patrick!
While working on EA Netherlands' annual report I wrote a small section about Rutger Bregman, the School for Moral Ambition, and how I now see EAN's role in the Netherlands.
It's been shared with other national organisers and with a few people in CEA, but I thought I'd post an edited version here in case it's helpful to more people.
TL;DR: SMA is a more mainstream, career-focused offshoot: ~20 staff, three programs (outreach, community, fellowships), and an expanding audience. EA Netherlands is the nerdier cousin.
Thanks for sharing this, James. I haven't read the book yet, so what I'm about to write is based on following RB and MA's activites on Linkedin, looking at the MA website and talking to someone who attended one of their online onboarding sessions. So please take some aspects of my comment with a grain of salt.
As an EA city group organiser, I think what would be helpful for me (and likely for other community builders) is guidance on how to position our work in light of the new MA movement. I'm hopeful that the two can co-exist and even amplify one another. You've mentioned that several of MA’s co-founders have roots in the EA community (including one who co-directed EA Netherlands), which I personally find really encouraging.
However, I do feel some concern around the intentional distancing from EA (for PR reasons we assume), particularly the decision not to publically disclose the close ties between the two, the pretty blatant repackaging of the ITN framework under a new label (SSS - I found the third S - "sorely overlooked" - a bit of a stretch!), with no mention as to the origin, the omission of 80,000 hours and now, (from what I’ve heard), the recent promotion of Effective Giving without mentioning GWWC, etc. It's my worry that all of this, from a local community building perspective, has the potential to create real friction.
For example, I can imagine a Moral Ambition Circle starting up here in Barcelona. If we from EA Barcelona try to connect or collaborate, we may be met with confusion, or worse, even suspicion. People might say, "What's that you say? You're part of another movement doing almost the same thing? But with a way worse reputation? Why should I believe you given that there's no mention of EA on the MA website, etc". That lack of transparency could lead to mistrust, even if our intentions are aligned.
Anyway, I’d really love to hear your thoughts on how to navigate this emerging dynamic in a positive and constructive way, especially in terms of messaging and collaboration with MA. Thank you!
Update: I have since finished the book. Overall, I really enjoyed reading it, and agree that it’s essentially EA repackaged for a broader audience, which I find genuinely exciting. After finishing it, I felt a renewed, strong motivation to continue striving to build a better world.
At the same time, the lack of explicit acknowledgement of EA’ obvious influence still feels quite off to me. In fact, "influence" is too weak a word - it's clear that this book probably wouldn't exist if it weren't for the groundwork of EA. Others have said that Rutger speaks positively about EA in different contexts, so I can't help but wonder: why not use this book, which looks likely to reach a huge new audience, to improve EA’s optics, rather than reinforce outdated criticisms? Like, he mostly critiques EA for being too “nerdy,” too focused on earning to give, and references SBF as a warning against extreme utilitarianism (fair), but to me it sounds like he got a bit put off by “old EA” and stopped updating his view on how the movement has expanded over the past few years.
Some things also come across uncomfortably close to plagiarism for my liking (maybe this is too deontological a stance for many people on this forum, but I believe in giving credit where credit is due). For example, the SSS model is essentially a copy of the ITN framework, but he doesn’t acknowledge that anywhere. He dedicates a full chapter to Charity Entrepreneurship and how amazing it is, without once mentioning its strong ties to the EA movement. Then later, in his one chapter where he mostly criticises EA, he says "oh, btw, remember that awesome organisation I mentioned before? That was founded through the EA movement - now, moving on...", as if it was so... incidental. He's clearly very impressed by Joey Savoie (fair) but Will MacAskill, Toby Ord and others don't get much praise (unfair). And, the most serious omission in my opinion, is that 80,000 Hours isn’t referenced at all, except in a couple of footnotes, despite the book’s entire premise (and, in particular, the introduction) basically echoing 80k's core message i.e. “You have 80,000 hours in your career. Why not use them to make a difference?”
So, while I’m still overall very excited about MA and the new energy/talent it could bring into our work and shared mission, I'm still concerned about the pretty serious lack of attribution and the strategic distancing. I think it could make it harder for us to build bridges and create a shared, transparent narrative between these two clearly very aligned communities.
Hi Melanie, if I was a local EA group leader like you I'd feel more like you because it is awkward and something to have to deal with. But I'm welcoming the energy of it...I saw on Linked yesterday a picture of some new School of Moral Ambition enthusiasts in front of a bus that had the SMA name on it, and I knew two of them personally from EA circles and another whose name I recognized. One is an effective giving leader, the other Animal Welfare. I'm a Global Health person, and I think we are all not feeling that great in EA for the last few years as it starting leaning toward Longtermism and now AI...of course I'm glad we are doing work in those areas, but it seems like charity work has fallen to the side, and it appears Moral Ambition would move charity work back to the center.
I am encouraged that within well known EA effective giving funds, charity work is still represented, so as a bulwark infrastructure of EA, it is still there, but as for the winds of energy and movement, that all seems to be blowing toward AI right now, you can even see a post on the forum now about this dynamic. I have hopes to make a case within EA for more mental health funding in LMICs but it seems I'd be going against so many winds as to be almost an ineffective use of time...and if that were the case, you can imagine someone like me slowly fading from EA and going to Moral Ambition as a more welcoming place...but I agree with your premise that it would be better for us to work together.
The final thought is that with so many EA's feeling shy and becoming adjacent, I think I can understand why a person starting a new movement would make the clear decision to steer clear of the name mostly in their writing, while still having good relations with people behind the scenes. I find myself holding back on EA mentions when some of them drew negative feedback/criticisms...not something a new charity needs when building.
My starting point would be to give the MA group a good bit of breathing room here. Based on this quote, it appears that Bregman is intentionally trying to do something distinct from EA. I think there's a lot of potential value in that approach, and would be concerned about interfering with it. That may change as MA becomes more established, but for now I think it makes sense for MA to focus on being its own thing with a clear separation from EA.
While I too suspect that some of the distancing is "for PR reasons," I suspect there is more to it than that. The quote suggests that Bregman is aiming for a movement with a broader scope rather than focusing as much on the recruitment of elite, highly engaged individuals. I personally think that is a vast area that EA has been largely unable to tap (in part for cultural reasons), and I'm not sure if significant interfacing with EA early on is going to help MA tap it. Once it has its own culture and is more developed, MA should be in a position to work more closely with EA without being swallowed by it.
Of course, MA will develop its own weaknesses and turnoffs. But there's significant value in those weaknesses being somewhat different than the weaknesses and turnoffs of the EA community. We want to maximize the number of individuals who will find a comfortable home in a effectiveness-focused community of altruism, and having the EA-like movements be too similar doesn't move us toward that goal.