PDF Summary:Doing Good Better, by William MacAskill

Given the many formidable problems plaguing the world—like poverty, food insecurity, and climate change—it’s tempting to think that nobody can make a difference. But, according to philosopher and public intellectual William MacAskill, that line of thinking is mistaken. In Doing Good Better (2015), MacAskill argues that we can save hundreds of lives by maximizing the good we do for others. In particular, he defends effective altruism—the movement focused on doing the most good for others—and shows how to spend our time and money to best help those in need.

In this guide, we’ll first focus on the principles behind effective altruism. Then, we’ll see how to apply these principles in practice, from deciding which career to pursue to which problems to address and which charities to fund. Throughout this guide, we’ll also consider complementary perspectives from other effective altruists and provide actionable tips for implementing MacAskill’s strategies.

(continued)...

(Shortform note: In a similar vein, the notion of expected value is central to poker theory. Poker experts note that, to decide whether to bet on a given hand—and if so, how much to bet on a given hand—it’s crucial to calculate the expected value of your hand. For example, if you determine that your hand has negative expected value (meaning that you’ll lose money on average if you play it), it likely makes sense to fold.)

In the context of effective altruism, calculating expected value can help you decide between risky careers. For example, imagine you’re choosing between becoming a cancer researcher and a climate change researcher. You might think that, if you become a cancer researcher, your chance of a massive breakthrough (say, one that yields one million QALYs) is about 1%, and the other 99% of the time you’ll have a modest career that saves 1,000 QALYs. By contrast, you might think that if you become a climate change researcher, there’s a 2% chance of a massive breakthrough (say, one that saves 600,000 QALYs), but the other 98% of the time you’ll make no progress (0 QALYs).

First, the expected value of becoming a cancer researcher is (0.01 x 1,000,000 QALYs) + (0.99 x 1,000 QALYs) = 10,990 QALYs. On the other hand, the expected value of becoming a climate change researcher is (0.02 x 600,000 QALYs) + (0.98 x 0 QALYs) = 12,000 QALYs. So, this (oversimplified) calculation would suggest that it’s better to become a climate change researcher, since that route has a higher expected value.

(Shortform note: Although expected value can inform your decision of which career to pursue, effective altruists are careful to note that expected value isn’t the only relevant consideration. For example, they argue that you should normally avoid intentionally doing harm in your career, even if a harmful action has positive expected value—you shouldn’t work in an immoral but lucrative field simply to donate your salary to charity, for instance.)

The Practical Implications of Effective Altruism

Having explored the theoretical principles behind effective altruism, we’ll now discuss how these principles can help you make three key decisions—which career to pursue, which problems to address, and which charities to fund.

Determine Which Career Path to Take

According to MacAskill, the first decision that effective altruism can inform will determine how you spend 80,000 hours of your life—namely, which career you should pursue. He argues that, regardless of whether you decide to earn to give or work directly for altruistic causes, you should assess future careers along three considerations: How well do you personally align with the career? What will your immediate impact be? And what’s the long-term impact of your career?

Consideration #1: Alignment

First, MacAskill contends that careers that offer strong personal alignment are most conducive to effective altruism. He explains that, in careers that suit you well, you’ll be more likely to work productively and more resistant to burnout, meaning your long-term impact will be greater.

(Shortform note: Experts recommend various strategies for deciding whether a job aligns well with you. For example, you should assess your needs and boundaries, and see whether your job meets your needs while also respecting your boundaries. Further, these experts recommend reflecting on your underlying motivations, then searching for jobs that allow you to pursue those motivations.)

To find such careers, MacAskill recommends that you focus less on nebulous notions like your “calling” or “passion” and instead seek out careers with features that, according to research, are predictive of job satisfaction. For example, you should seek out careers that offer you a sense of autonomy over your work and allow you to perform an array of interesting tasks. Moreover, he says, research suggests that work with a tangible, positive impact on other people is more likely to satisfy you.

(Shortform note: Research has revealed that in addition to valuing autonomy and interesting work, several other factors are predictive of job satisfaction. For instance, workers are happier when they have strong job security, a consistent and competitive salary, and positive relationships with their coworkers and superiors.)

Consideration #2: Immediate Impact

Next, MacAskill writes that you should consider the immediate impact that you’ll have on the job. He maintains that this immediate impact occurs in two primary ways—first, via the actual labor that you perform on the job, and second, via the money you can earn and donate to worthy causes.

Regarding your actual labor, if you pursue a career at an altruistic organization then you can directly improve the lives of those around you. However, MacAskill warns that you have to remember to assess the counterfactual to determine your actual impact—you don’t merely need to do good work in your job, but rather better work than the person who would have gotten your job in your place. For example, in a social work organization with sufficient staffing, your job would’ve likely been filled by another competent social worker had you declined, meaning your net impact might actually be fairly small.

(Shortform note: In most cases, working within a preexisting organization fails the counterfactual test because your actual impact will only be the difference between your results and the results of the person who would’ve otherwise gotten your job. For this reason, effective altruists recommend trying to found impactful organizations instead. After all, if you establish an altruistic organization that wouldn’t have otherwise existed, your counterfactual impact will be much greater.)

MacAskill says that earning to give, on the other hand, passes the counterfactual test—because few individuals donate a significant amount of money, the person who would have gotten your job in your place likely wouldn’t have donated significantly. For example, if you’re a corporate lawyer who chooses to donate (say) $100,000 annually, it’s likely that the person who would’ve taken your job had you worked elsewhere would not have donated as much.

(Shortform note: In Going Infinite, Michael Lewis relates that Sam Bankman-Fried—the founder of cryptocurrency exchange FTX—became a Wall Street trader in the first place because he was convinced by MacAskill’s arguments about earning to give. However, Bankman-Fried’s embrace of effective altruism didn’t have a happy ending; although Bankman-Fried became a multibillionaire with FTX, he was sentenced to 25 years in prison for fraud after losing billions from his users. That said, Bankman-Fried did donate an estimated $100 million to various political causes, though several lawsuits from FTX’s clients are trying to claw back that money.)

Consideration #3: Long-Term Impact

Finally, MacAskill recommends that you assess the long-term impact of your job, specifically in terms of the skills and knowledge that you’ll develop. He points out that, in certain jobs, the organizational experience you gain can prove valuable if you decide to transition to a different career later in life. For instance, although working in business directly out of college might feel less altruistic than joining a non-profit, the experience you gain managing employees can pay dividends if you decide to shift to a non-profit later in your career.

(Shortform note: Another way to determine the long-term impact of your job is by assessing the transferable skills you’ll gain from it. Transferable skills—that is, skills that are crucial across a wide range of industries, rather than in one industry alone—could include communication, decision-making, and leadership.)

Determine Which Problems to Address

MacAskill writes that just as effective altruism can help you decide on a career, it can also inform your decision of which problems to address—whether directly, via working for an organization focused on a specific cause, or indirectly, via donating money to an organization that focuses on a specific cause. He contends that you should assess causes via three dimensions: What is the magnitude of the problem? How feasible is solving the problem? And how underappreciated is the problem?

Dimension #1: Magnitude

To start, MacAskill explains that we should focus on problems of greater magnitude, all else being equal. In other words, we should tackle issues that have the largest impact on well-being worldwide. For example, researchers estimate that cardiovascular diseases cost 393 million QALYs annually, whereas mental health disorders cost 125 million QALYS annually. Consequently, MacAskill would suggest that we should prioritize addressing cardiovascular diseases instead of mental health disorders, holding all other factors equal.

(Shortform note: Although MacAskill suggests that we focus on issues with the largest worldwide impact, effective altruists have more recently moved toward focusing on issues with the largest possible impact. That is, many effective altruists are especially concerned with existential risks, like climate change, that could wipe out humankind altogether, even though the likelihood of these risks is low. These effective altruists reason that, although problems that currently plague the world might cost millions of lives annually, existential risks could cost billions of lives if they come to fruition. Thus, even though their risk of occurring is low, it still makes sense to tackle these existential threats first.)

Dimension #2: Feasibility

Additionally, MacAskill clarifies that it’s better to focus on problems that we can feasibly solve, rather than those that are less solvable. Returning to the previous example, if it turned out that cardiovascular diseases were significantly more difficult to research, whereas mental health disorders could be treated easily, we should focus on treating mental health disorders—even though it’s a smaller magnitude problem.

(Shortform note: Other effective altruists clarify that feasibility can be measured more formally by asking the following question: If we doubled the resources allocated to a given problem, what percentage of the problem would we solve? For instance, you might think that if we doubled the total resources allocated toward cancer research, we’d be (say) 5% of the way toward curing cancer, making cancer a relatively less feasible problem. By contrast, if doubling the resources used toward food insecurity could put us 25% of the way toward solving that issue, then it would be significantly more feasible to solve.)

Dimension #3: Visibility

Finally, MacAskill argues that you should focus especially on overlooked causes rather than well-known causes. After all, well-known causes (such as climate change) receive more attention, meaning that your donation or labor won’t make a huge difference—even if you don’t donate, the charity will have sufficient funding, and even if you aren’t a climate change researcher, there will likely be sufficient researchers. By contrast, less prominent causes (such as anti-malaria initiatives) pass the counterfactual test, because they will be materially less effective without your donation or direct labor.

(Shortform note: According to experts, affluent Americans in 2022 were most likely to donate to religious causes, educational causes, and causes relating to health care. Thus, it stands to reason that further donations to those causes are likely less effective, since none of them are overlooked.)

Determine Which Charities to Fund

For those who choose to pursue high-paying careers so that they can earn to give, MacAskill notes that the final decision is which charities to fund. To find the charities most worthy of your donations, he recommends asking three questions: How cost-effective is the charity? How strong is the evidence? And is the charity underfunded?

Question #1: How Cost-Effective Is the Charity?

According to MacAskill, the pivotal factor when assessing a charity is its cost-effectiveness—that is, roughly how many QALYs are saved per dollar donated to the charity?

To answer this question, MacAskill recommends that you first find out what exactly your donation purchases. For example, if you were donating to a charity that provides Covid-19 vaccines in developing countries, you might find out that (say) a $1,000 donation can purchase 200 vaccines. Next, you need to assess roughly how many QALYs your donation saves (for most major charities, this information should be available via public studies and models). For example, you might determine that one Covid-19 vaccine saves (on average) 0.5 QALYs, meaning that your $1,000 donation of 200 vaccines saves 100 QALYs—$10 per QALY.

(Shortform note: Experts point out that concerns over the efficiency of donations are one of the strongest arguments against donating. For example, people often worry that too little of their donation actually goes to those in need—instead, an excessive portion of the donation might go toward charitable organizations’ overhead costs. However, this only strengthens MacAskill’s point: It’s critical to find charities that are as cost-effective as possible.)

Question #2: How Strong Is the Evidence for the Charity?

Next, MacAskill advises assessing the evidence of a charity’s effectiveness so that you can know how confident to be about it. In this regard, he points out that peer-reviewed academic publications—especially meta-studies reviewing multiple studies—are the gold standard. Programs organizing direct cash transfers to individuals in developing countries, for instance, have been rigorously tested and found to be highly effective. So, even if one charity seems like it’s slightly less cost-effective than another, that consideration can be outweighed if that same charity has much more rigorous evidence backing its effectiveness.

(Shortform note: Researchers offer several reasons why meta-studies are generally preferable to individual studies. For instance, meta-studies are better able to establish statistical significance than individual studies by virtue of having larger sample sizes to test. They also allow researchers to test hypotheses across various subsets of individuals—in the case of direct cash transfers, for example, meta-studies could determine whether their effectiveness changes depending on the country they take place in.)

Question #3: Is the Charity Underfunded?

Finally, MacAskill writes that you should figure out whether the charity is underfunded, since many of the most cost-effective charities already have sufficient funding (meaning that additional donations deliver less bang for their buck). He says that, to find out which charities need further funding, you can consult GiveWell—a nonprofit dedicated to ranking the most effective charities to donate to every year.

(Shortform note: This website can also help you answer Questions #1 and #2, as it assesses the evidence for charities and their cost-effectiveness. Other websites you can consult when considering donating include charitynavigator.org and charitywatch.org.)