In defense of effective altruism
February 3, 2026
By Faris Hamadeh
Effective Altruism (EA) is a global movement that stems from a simple yet profoundly demanding moral intuition: if we can help others, we should do so in the way that generates the greatest good with the resources available. Its contemporary origins are associated with the Australian philosopher Peter Singer, especially his famous example of the «drowning child»: if we can save a child in danger without significant cost, we have an obligation to do so. Singer invites us to extend this logic to those suffering far from us through donations.
In practical terms, this approach leads to the core of EA: the intention to help is not enough; it is necessary to ask how to do it better. Some interventions save or improve far more lives than others, and the movement insists on using comparative evidence, feasibility analysis, and rigorous prioritization.
Despite its internal consistency, EA has not been without controversy. The collapse of the cryptocurrency platform FTX and the fraudulent conduct of its founder, Sam Bankman-Fried, who had championed the «earn to give» principle, dealt a significant reputational blow. However, this episode does not invalidate the EA framework. Individual malpractice does not invalidate the normative validity of the idea, and suggesting otherwise is absurd. Beyond this controversy, the reasons justifying the existence of EA remain fully valid. We live in a world where the tools for alleviating suffering are truly extraordinary. In this context, EA reminds us of a very uncomfortable truth: every euro allocated to one cause is a euro not allocated to another, and that difference can translate into lives saved or lost.
Based on this premise, one of the movement’s most influential proposals is to make generosity a structural habit. Instead of donating only when a crisis arises or when «something is left over,» EA proposes setting a clear percentage of our income to donate consistently. This reduces moral procrastination and normalizes giving as part of life’s financial architecture, rather than seeing it as an occasional gesture. It would be ironic to talk about the EA—a movement committed to data-driven decision-making—without actually looking at the data. With that in mind, in 2025, those living in Europe donated an average of 0.64% of their income, while in Africa the average was 1.54%, according to CAF’s World Giving Report. The methodology used calculates generosity as a proportion of income and combines donations to NGOs, religious contributions, and direct aid. The fact that Africa, being significantly poorer, donates a higher percentage of its income than Europe suggests that wealthier countries could be doing more.
So how much should we donate? The most well-known commitment proposes donating at least 10% of income sustainably, but it’s not a fixed figure; rather, the idea is that the percentage should be adapted to each person’s financial means. The Life You Can Save project, inspired by Singer, proposes a more progressive (and perhaps more realistic starting point) model of regularly donating 1% for middle-income earners.
Early Action (EA) is not limited to donations from individuals; its rigorous logic has the capacity to transcend different areas. For example, EA is beginning to influence the field of impact investing. Its framework, based on three criteria—importance, tractability, and neglect—helps identify large-scale problems with proven solutions and limited funding, where additional capital can make a disproportionate difference. Funds like Rubio Ventures in the Netherlands are already incorporating this approach into their impact methodology.
For those who identify with the EA philosophy, its relentless rationality is an essential part of its appeal. For others, it may seem like going too far. But perhaps it’s not necessary to adopt the strictest rationalism. If those of us who can afford it set a clear donation percentage at the beginning of each year – 1%, 5% or 10%, according to our means – and integrate it into the budget as if it were a tax (with an automatic direct debit at the end of the month), we would already be taking a huge step with a very tangible impact.