What do you think?
Rate this book
Questioning Beneficence
Effective Altruism is a movement and a philosophy that has reinvigorated the debate about the nature of beneficence. At base, it is the consistent application of microeconomic principles to beneficent action. The movement has exposed that many forms of giving do little good (or do active harm), but others do tremendous good.
Questioning Beneficence uses Effective Altruism as a launch pad to ask hard questions about beneficence more generally. Must we be Effective Altruists, or are Effective Altruism and the ideas driving the movement a mistake? How much should we give―if anything― and how should we give it? What are the respective roles of different kinds of institutions? Is charity anti-democratic and do billionaire philanthropists have too much power? Is Effective Altruism just utilitarianism in disguise?
Questioning Beneficence is written by four philosophers, each with distinct points of view. It introduces a new standard for debating ideas in philosophy as each author poses and answers three questions and each of his three co-authors responds to those questions in turn. Finally, the first author replies to his co-authors’ responses. Throughout the book, there is a spirit of curiosity, intellectual risk taking, and truth-seeking, rather than point-scoring and one-upmanship. This book demonstrates what open-minded, real dialogue on an important issue can be at its very best.
Key
Introduces a new roundtable format for philosophical each of four authors takes the lead in constructing and answering three questions, each co-author then responds, and the first author then replies to the others’ responses. Explores salient philosophical questions raised by beneficence, like Can philanthropy be undemocratic? Why are people so bad at charity and what can we do about it? How important is beneficence compared to other values? Can Effective Altruism be part of a meaningful moral life? Consistently written in a clear and engaging style, suitable for both undergraduate students and curious general readers
Questioning Beneficence uses Effective Altruism as a launch pad to ask hard questions about beneficence more generally. Must we be Effective Altruists, or are Effective Altruism and the ideas driving the movement a mistake? How much should we give―if anything― and how should we give it? What are the respective roles of different kinds of institutions? Is charity anti-democratic and do billionaire philanthropists have too much power? Is Effective Altruism just utilitarianism in disguise?
Questioning Beneficence is written by four philosophers, each with distinct points of view. It introduces a new standard for debating ideas in philosophy as each author poses and answers three questions and each of his three co-authors responds to those questions in turn. Finally, the first author replies to his co-authors’ responses. Throughout the book, there is a spirit of curiosity, intellectual risk taking, and truth-seeking, rather than point-scoring and one-upmanship. This book demonstrates what open-minded, real dialogue on an important issue can be at its very best.
Key
Introduces a new roundtable format for philosophical each of four authors takes the lead in constructing and answering three questions, each co-author then responds, and the first author then replies to the others’ responses. Explores salient philosophical questions raised by beneficence, like Can philanthropy be undemocratic? Why are people so bad at charity and what can we do about it? How important is beneficence compared to other values? Can Effective Altruism be part of a meaningful moral life? Consistently written in a clear and engaging style, suitable for both undergraduate students and curious general readers
- GenresPhilosophy
246 pages, Paperback
Published September 30, 2024
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
October 6, 2024
tl;dr - mainly recommended for people already big into philosophy and EA.
I've been looking forward to this release, and I finished reading it in one day.
It’s a discussion of effective altruism and beneficence (actions aimed at helping others) by four philosophers with very different perspectives. Arnold is a socialist concerned about democracy and public life. Brennan is pro-business, soft EA. Chappelle is a hard EA (like me). Davis does not believe in any intrinsic obligations to help others.
I'm glad that I read it. The essays and responses covered interesting territory. I'm also glad that critics of EA are finally engaging in a dialogue, where they cannot get away with straw-manning.
I think that the time has come for an overview of the EA debate, with an informed and thoughtful point-counterpoint format. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if this is the best fit for that, so I'm not sure if I would recommend it for someone looking for that kind of book. For starters, they don’t have an introductory essay defining effective altruism. This wouldn't have been hard - just get MacAskill or someone to write the foreword. Second, they spend a significant amount of space on what are, at best, weakly related topics, such as CSR. I’m also disappointed that they weren’t any final thoughts. The premise of the book was open discussion, so why not have any short reflections?
I did get value out of Chapelle vs Brennan (hard EA vs soft EA, for lack better terms). Although Arnold is not an EA, I think he’s quite sensible and a great discussion partner (and admitted to making a mistake, massive points from me!). Davis, however… I struggled enormously to even entertain his case against the duty of easy rescue. I don't see how someone could strongly support negative duties while strongly rejecting even the most minimal positive duties. It didn't help that I strongly disagreed with every single premise in his supporting arguments from gratitude and resentment, so they did nothing for me.
Overall, this book does advance the debate around EA, mainly because, to my knowledge, this is the first book-form debate on EA. It's useful to see how more moderate philosophers are currently thinking about EA. People heavily into EA and philosophy will get a lot out of this. Personally, I'm still waiting for the EA analogue of Dialogues on Ethical Vegetarianism or Is Morality Real?: A Debate to recommend to my skeptic friends who refuse to read anything about EA that isn't 'balanced'.
I've been looking forward to this release, and I finished reading it in one day.
It’s a discussion of effective altruism and beneficence (actions aimed at helping others) by four philosophers with very different perspectives. Arnold is a socialist concerned about democracy and public life. Brennan is pro-business, soft EA. Chappelle is a hard EA (like me). Davis does not believe in any intrinsic obligations to help others.
I'm glad that I read it. The essays and responses covered interesting territory. I'm also glad that critics of EA are finally engaging in a dialogue, where they cannot get away with straw-manning.
I think that the time has come for an overview of the EA debate, with an informed and thoughtful point-counterpoint format. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if this is the best fit for that, so I'm not sure if I would recommend it for someone looking for that kind of book. For starters, they don’t have an introductory essay defining effective altruism. This wouldn't have been hard - just get MacAskill or someone to write the foreword. Second, they spend a significant amount of space on what are, at best, weakly related topics, such as CSR. I’m also disappointed that they weren’t any final thoughts. The premise of the book was open discussion, so why not have any short reflections?
I did get value out of Chapelle vs Brennan (hard EA vs soft EA, for lack better terms). Although Arnold is not an EA, I think he’s quite sensible and a great discussion partner (and admitted to making a mistake, massive points from me!). Davis, however… I struggled enormously to even entertain his case against the duty of easy rescue. I don't see how someone could strongly support negative duties while strongly rejecting even the most minimal positive duties. It didn't help that I strongly disagreed with every single premise in his supporting arguments from gratitude and resentment, so they did nothing for me.
Overall, this book does advance the debate around EA, mainly because, to my knowledge, this is the first book-form debate on EA. It's useful to see how more moderate philosophers are currently thinking about EA. People heavily into EA and philosophy will get a lot out of this. Personally, I'm still waiting for the EA analogue of Dialogues on Ethical Vegetarianism or Is Morality Real?: A Debate to recommend to my skeptic friends who refuse to read anything about EA that isn't 'balanced'.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review