Effective Altruism (”EA”) is a darling of Tech scions. The movement to “do good better” is supported by influential blogs like Slate Star Index, which counts founders of Stripe, PayPal, and Y Combinator as its readers. Elon Musk has even declared that a book by EA’s founder is “a close match for my philosophy.”
Tech scions gravitate to EA’s utilitarian interests. They argue that we should make as much money as we can. The thinking goes that if $4500 buys enough bed nets to save one person’s life from malaria, we have blood on our hands for not making money to give to charities that EA orgs argue are most effective.
That type of EA thinking turns billionaire philanthropists like Bill Gates into moral saints.
While money can save lives**,** Billionaire utilitarianism isn’t the only path to doing moral good. Utilitarianism is countered by deontological approaches, both of which are counter to a deist approach that also counter the Categorical Imperative, which most, including me, can’t understand.
In other words, moral philosophy is complicated.
I cannot say Bill Gates is evil or a saint, but I hope tech scions like him do not think that they have to be utilitarians to do good.
For example, let’s look at the career of Dr. Jim Yong Kim.
Dr. Kim began his medical career treating multiple drug-resistant tuberculosis in rural Haitian communities. Working in poverty-stricken clinics, I’m sure Dr. Kim faced the question of who to save with limited resources. That said, Dr. Kim did not stop being a doctor to the patients he didn’t have drugs to treat. Doctors take the Hippocratic oath. Through the [Hippocratic oath](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html#:~:text=I swear to fulfill%2C to,those who are to follow.), doctors pledge to save every life with whatever resources they have. The modern oath includes the statement:
"I will remember that there is an art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.”
That statement seems useful to Silicon Valley scions, like Mark Zuckerberg and Musk, who readily announce the fact that their technology affects all of humanity.
Maybe EA-inspired techno-scions should take a Hippocratic oath?
I wonder what Facebook would look like if Zuckerberg had the humanistic compassion of a good doctor. Would our Facebook timeline be filled with rants if Zuckerberg favored individual human dignity over the long-term benefit of Meta and its investors?
You can have a humanistic approach and become an impactful leader.
After Dr. Kim treated untold thousands in poverty-stricken communities, he became the head of the World Bank.
The Word Bank did not collapse under Dr.Kim’s leadership. In fact, the World Bank’s fund for the poorest people grew to record levels. The institution also launched facilities to address infrastructure needs, prevent pandemics, and help the millions of people forcibly displaced from their homes by climate shocks, conflict, and violence.
Dr. Kim’s example inspires me to work outside of pure utilitarianism. Like Dr. Kim, I can take a perspective where the individual I’m working with matters most, without avoiding big systematic challenges.
My oath will not be to help the sick as a doctor can. I am adapting my oath to help those with needs I can fulfill. That means using my web design skills to help a blind person use the internet. That also means helping my grandmother weed her garden and my fiancé practice job interviews.
Here is my slightly updated oath, published now so that I may be judged in the court of public opinion:
*I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the needy, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to my work as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding outweigh the surgeon's knife or the billionaire’s money.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of those I work with, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, an economic prediction, but someone who has a need I can fulfill, whose need may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems if I am to care adequately for the needy.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as those with needs I can fulfill.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of helping those who seek my assistance.*