Search This Blog

Monday, February 26, 2024

Prosperity theology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Gospel of success)

Prosperity theology (sometimes referred to as the prosperity gospel, the health and wealth gospel, the gospel of success, or seed faith) is a religious belief among some Charismatic Christians that financial blessing and physical well-being are always the will of God for them, and that faith, positive speech, and donations to religious causes will increase one's material wealth. Material and especially financial success is seen as a sign of divine favor.

Prosperity theology has been criticized by leaders from various Christian denominations, including within some Pentecostal and charismatic movements, who maintain that it is irresponsible, promotes idolatry, and is contrary to the Bible. Secular as well as Christian observers have also criticized prosperity theology as exploitative of the poor. The practices of some preachers have attracted scandal and some have been charged with financial fraud.

Prosperity theology views the Bible as a contract between God and humans: if humans have faith in God, God will deliver security and prosperity. The doctrine emphasizes the importance of personal empowerment, proposing that it is God's will for people to be blessed. The atonement (reconciliation with God) is interpreted to include the alleviation of sickness and poverty, which are viewed as curses to be broken by faith. This is believed to be achieved through donations of money, visualization, and positive confession.

It was during the Healing Revivals of the 1950s that prosperity theology first came to prominence in the United States, although commentators have linked the origins of its theology to the New Thought movement which began in the 19th century. The prosperity teaching later figured prominently in the Word of Faith movement and 1980s televangelism. In the 1990s and 2000s, it was adopted by influential leaders in the Pentecostal movement and charismatic movement in the United States and has spread throughout the world. Prominent leaders in the development of prosperity theology include Todd White, Benny Hinn, E. W. Kenyon, Oral Roberts, A. A. Allen, Robert Tilton, T. L. Osborn, Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, Kenneth Copeland, Reverend Ike, Kenneth Hagin, Joseph Prince, and Jesse Duplantis.

History

Late 19th and early 20th-century background

According to historian Kate Bowler, the prosperity gospel was formed from the intersection of three different ideologies: Pentecostalism, New Thought, and "an American gospel of pragmatism, individualism, and upward mobility". This "American gospel" was best exemplified by Andrew Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth and Russell Conwell's famous sermon "Acres of Diamonds", in which Conwell equated poverty with sin and asserted that anyone could become rich through hard work. This gospel of wealth, however, was an expression of Muscular Christianity and understood success to be the result of personal effort rather than divine intervention.

The New Thought movement, which emerged in the 1880s, was responsible for popularizing belief in the power of the mind to achieve prosperity. While initially focused on achieving mental and physical health, New Thought teachers such as Charles Fillmore made material success a major emphasis of the movement. By the 20th century, New Thought concepts had saturated American popular culture, being common features of both self-help literature and popular psychology.

E. W. Kenyon, a Baptist minister and adherent of the Higher Life movement, is credited with introducing mind-power teachings into early Pentecostalism. In the 1890s, Kenyon attended Emerson College of Oratory where he was exposed to the New Thought movement. Kenyon later became connected with well-known Pentecostal leaders and wrote about supernatural revelation and positive declarations. His writing influenced leaders of the nascent prosperity movement during the post-war American healing revival. Kenyon and later leaders in the prosperity movement have denied that he was influenced by the New Thought movement. Anthropologist Simon Coleman argues that there are "obvious parallels" between Kenyon's teachings and New Thought.

Kenyon taught that Christ's substitutionary atonement secured for believers a right to divine healing. This was attained through positive, faith-filled speech; the spoken word of God allowed believers to appropriate the same spiritual power that God used to create the world and attain the provisions promised in Christ's death and resurrection. Prayer was understood to be a binding, legal act. Rather than asking, Kenyon taught believers to demand healing since they were already legally entitled to receive it.

Kenyon's blend of evangelical religion and mind-power beliefs—what he termed "overcoming faith"—resonated with a small but influential segment of the Pentecostal movement. Pentecostals had always been committed to faith healing, and the movement also possessed a strong belief in the power of speech (in particular speaking in tongues and the use of the names of God, especially the name of Jesus). Kenyon's ideas would be reflected in the teachings of Pentecostal evangelists F. F. Bosworth and John G. Lake (who co-led a congregation with New Thought author Albert C. Grier prior to 1915).

Post 1945 Healing Revivals

While Kenyon's teachings on overcoming faith laid the groundwork for the prosperity gospel, the first generation of Pentecostals influenced by him and other figures, such as Bosworth, did not view faith as a means to attain material prosperity. In fact, early Pentecostals tended to view prosperity as a threat to a person's spiritual well-being. By the 1940s and 1950s, however, a recognizable form of the doctrine began to take shape within the Pentecostal movement through the teachings of deliverance and healing evangelists. Combining prosperity teaching with revivalism and faith healing, these evangelists taught "the laws of faith ('ask and ye shall receive') and the laws of divine reciprocity ('give and it will be given back unto you')".

Oral Roberts began teaching prosperity theology in 1947. He explained the laws of faith as a "blessing pact" in which God would return donations "seven fold", promising that donors would receive back from unexpected sources the money they donated to him. Roberts offered to return any donation that did not lead to an equivalent unexpected payment. In the 1970s, Roberts characterized his blessing pact teaching as the "seed faith" doctrine: donations were a form of "seed" which would grow in value and be returned to the donor. Roberts began recruiting "partners", wealthy donors who received exclusive conference invitations and ministry access in exchange for support.

In 1953, faith healer A. A. Allen published The Secret to Scriptural Financial Success and promoted merchandise such as "miracle tent shavings" and prayer cloths anointed with "miracle oil". In the late 1950s, Allen increasingly focused on prosperity. He taught that faith could miraculously solve financial problems and claimed to have had a miraculous experience in which God supernaturally changed one-dollar bills into twenty-dollar bills to allow him to pay his debts. Allen taught the "word of faith" or the power to speak something into being.

In the 1960s, prosperity became a primary focus in healing revivals. T. L. Osborn began emphasizing prosperity in the 1960s and became known for his often ostentatious displays of personal wealth. During that decade, Roberts and William Branham criticized other prosperity ministries, arguing that their fund-raising tactics unfairly pressured attendees. These tactics were prompted in part by the expense of developing nationwide radio networks and campaign schedules. At the same time, leaders of the Pentecostal Assemblies of God denomination often criticized the focus on prosperity taken by independent healing evangelists.

Televangelism

During the 1960s, prosperity gospel teachers embraced televangelism and came to dominate religious programming in the United States. Oral Roberts was among the first, developing a syndicated weekly program that became the most watched religious show in the United States. By 1968, television had supplanted the tent meeting in his ministry.

Reverend Ike, a pastor from New York City, began preaching about prosperity in the late 1960s. He soon had widely aired radio and television programs and became distinguished for his flashy style. His openness about love for material possessions and teachings about the "Science of the Mind" led many evangelists to distance themselves from him.

In the 1980s, public attention in the United States was drawn to prosperity theology through the influence of prominent televangelists such as Jim Bakker. Bakker's influence waned, however, after he was implicated in a high-profile scandal. In the aftermath, Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) emerged as the dominant force in prosperity televangelism, having brought Robert Tilton and Benny Hinn to prominence.

Word of Faith

Although nearly all of the healing evangelists of the 1940s and 1950s taught that faith could bring financial rewards, a new prosperity-oriented teaching developed in the 1970s that differed from the one taught by Pentecostal evangelists of the 1950s. This "Positive Confession" or "Word of Faith" movement taught that a Christian with faith can speak into existence anything consistent with the will of God.

Kenneth Hagin was credited with a key role in the expansion of prosperity theology. He founded the RHEMA Bible Training Center in 1974, and over the next 20 years, the school trained more than 10,000 students in his theology. As is true of other prosperity movements, there is no theological governing body for the Word of Faith movement, and well-known ministries differ on some theological issues, though many ministries are unofficially linked. The teachings of Kenneth Hagin have been described by Candy Gunther Brown of Indiana University as the most "orthodox" form of Word of Faith prosperity teaching.

International growth

By the late 2000s, proponents claimed that tens of millions of Christians had accepted prosperity theology. The neo-Pentecostal movement has been characterized in part by an emphasis on prosperity theology, which gained greater acceptance within charismatic Christianity during the late 1990s. In the 2000s, Evangelical-Pentecostal churches teaching prosperity theology saw significant growth in the Global South and Third World countries. According to Philip Jenkins of Pennsylvania State University, poor citizens of impoverished countries often find the doctrine appealing because of their economic powerlessness and the doctrine's emphasis on miracles. One region seeing explosive growth is Western Africa, particularly Nigeria. In the Philippines, the El Shaddai movement, part of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal, has spread prosperity theology outside Protestant Christianity. One South Korean prosperity church, Yoido Full Gospel Church, gained attention in the 1990s by claiming to be the world's largest congregation.

A 2006 poll by Time reported that 17 percent of Christians in America said they identified with the movement. By the 2000s, adherents of prosperity theology in the United States were most common in the Sun Belt. By 2006, three of the four largest congregations in the United States were teaching prosperity theology, and Joel Osteen has been credited with spreading it outside of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movement through his books, which have sold over 4 million copies. Bruce Wilkinson's The Prayer of Jabez also sold millions of copies and invited readers to seek prosperity.

Recent history

In 2005, Matthew Ashimolowo, the founder of the largely African Kingsway International Christian Centre in southern England, which preaches a "health and wealth" gospel and collects regular tithes, was ordered by the Charity Commission to repay money he had appropriated for his personal use. In 2017, the organisation was under criminal investigation after a leading member was found by a court in 2015 to have operated a Ponzi scheme between 2007 and 2011, losing or spending £8 million of investors' money.

In 2007, U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley opened a probe into the finances of six televangelism ministries that promoted prosperity theology: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, Creflo Dollar Ministries, Benny Hinn Ministries, Bishop Eddie Long Ministries, Joyce Meyer Ministries, and Paula White Ministries. In January 2011, Grassley concluded his investigation stating that he believed self-regulation by religious organizations was preferable to government action. Only the ministries led by Meyer and Hinn cooperated with Grassley's investigation.

The inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States featured prayers from two preachers known for advocating prosperity theology. Paula White, one of Trump's spiritual advisers, gave the invocation.

Theology

Proponents of prosperity theology often cite the parable of the talents (here depicted in a 1712 woodcut)

Prosperity theology teaches that Christians are entitled to well-being and, because spiritual and physical realities are seen as one inseparable reality, interprets well-being as physical health and economic prosperity. Teachers of the doctrine focus on personal empowerment, promoting a positive view of the spirit and body. They maintain that Christians have been given power over creation because they are made in the image of God and teach that positive confession allows Christians to exercise dominion over their souls and material objects around them. Leaders of the movement view the atonement as providing for the alleviation of sickness, poverty, and spiritual corruption; poverty and illness are cast as curses which can be broken by faith and righteous actions. There are, however, some prosperity churches which seek a more moderate or reformed paradigm of prosperity. Kirbyjon Caldwell, pastor of a Methodist mega-church, supports a theology of abundant life, teaching prosperity for the whole human being, which he sees as a path to combating poverty.

Wealth is interpreted in prosperity theology as a blessing from God, obtained through a spiritual law of positive confession, visualization, and donations. Believers may see this process in almost mechanical terms; Kenneth Copeland, an American author and televangelist, argues that prosperity is governed by laws, while other teachers portray the process formulaically. Journalists David van Biema and Jeff Chu of Time have described Word of Faith pastor Creflo Dollar's teachings about prosperity as an inviolable contract between God and humanity.

The prosperity theology teaching of positive confession stems from its proponents' view of scripture. The Bible is seen as a faith contract between God and believers; God is understood to be faithful and just, so believers must fulfill their end of the contract to receive God's promises. This leads to a belief in positive confession: the doctrine that believers may claim whatever they desire from God, simply by speaking it. Prosperity theology teaches that the Bible has promised prosperity for believers, so positive confession means that believers are speaking in faith what God has already spoken about them. Positive confession is practiced to bring about what is already believed-in; faith itself is a confession, and speaking it brings it into reality.

The teaching often depends on non-traditional interpretations of Bible verses, the Book of Malachi often being given special attention. While Christians have generally celebrated Malachi for its passages about the Messiah, teachers of prosperity theology usually draw attention to its descriptions of physical wealth. Frequently quoted verses include:

  • Malachi 3:10: "'Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.'" (KJV)
  • Matthew 25:14–30: the Parable of the talents
  • John 10:10: "'I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.'" (KJV)
  • Philippians 4:19: "My God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus." (KJV)
  • 3 John 1:2: "Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth." (KJV)

Prosperity theology casts itself as the reclamation of true doctrine and thus part of a path to Christian dominion over secular society. It contends that God's promises of prosperity and victory to Israel in the Old Testament apply to New-Covenant Christians today, and that faith and holy actions release this prosperity. C. Peter Wagner, a leader of the New Apostolic Reformation, has argued that if Christians take dominion over aspects of society, the Earth will experience "peace and prosperity". Some Latin Americans who have embraced prosperity theology argue that Christianity has historically placed an unnecessary focus on suffering. They often view this as a Roman Catholic doctrine that should be discarded and replaced with an emphasis on prosperity. Prosperity-theology advocates also argue that biblical promises of blessings awaiting the poor have been unnecessarily spiritualized, and should be understood literally.

Practices

Prosperity churches place a strong emphasis on the importance of giving. Some services include a teaching-time focused on giving and prosperity, including Biblical references to tithing; and then a sermon on another topic which follows the offering. Prosperity-church leaders often claim that a specific blessing can be exchanged for the money being donated to their ministry; some have been reported to instruct worshipers to hold their donations above their heads during the prayer.

Congregants in prosperity churches are encouraged to speak positive statements about aspects of their lives that they wish to see improved. These statements, known as "positive confessions" (distinct from confessions of sin), are said to miraculously change aspects of people's lives if spoken with faith. Prosperity churches also encourage people to "live without limits" and to cultivate optimism about their lives. T. D. Jakes, pastor of The Potter's House non-denominational mega-church, has argued in favor of prosperity, rejecting what he sees as the demonization of success. He views poverty as a barrier to living a Christian life, suggesting that it is easier to make a positive impact on society when one is affluent.

While some prosperity churches have a reputation for manipulating and alienating the poor, many are involved in social programs. Underlying these programs is a theology of empowerment and human flourishing with the goal of releasing people from a "welfare" or "victim" mentality. Many prosperity churches hold seminars on financial responsibility. Kate Bowler, an academic who studies prosperity theology, has criticized such seminars, arguing that though they contain some sound advice, the seminars often emphasize the purchase of expensive possessions. Hanna Rosin of The Atlantic argues that prosperity theology contributed to the housing bubble that caused the late-2000s financial crisis. She maintains that prosperity churches heavily emphasized home ownership based on reliance on divine financial intervention that led to unwise choices based on actual financial ability.

Most churches in the prosperity movement are non-denominational and independent, though some groups have formed networks. Prosperity churches typically reject presbyterian polity (or governance) and the idea that a pastor should be accountable to elders; it is common for pastors of prosperity churches to be the highest organizational authority-figure. Critics, including Sarah Posner and Joe Conason, maintain that prosperity teachers cultivate authoritarian organizations. They argue that leaders attempt to control the lives of adherents by claiming divinely-bestowed authority. Jenkins contends that prosperity theology is used as a tool to justify the high salaries of pastors.

Reception

Socioeconomic analysis

In the United States, the movement has drawn many followers from the middle class and is most popular in commuter towns and urban areas. In Exporting the American Gospel: Global Christian Fundamentalism Steve Brouwer, Paul Gifford, and Susan Rose speculate that the movement was fueled by a prevailing disdain for social liberalism in the United States that began in the 1970s. Rosin argues that prosperity theology emerged because of broader trends, particularly American economic optimism in the 1950s and 1990s. Tony Lin of the University of Virginia has also compared the teaching to manifest destiny, the 19th-century belief that the United States was entitled to the West. Marvin Harris argues that the doctrine's focus on the material world is a symptom of the secularization of American religion. He sees it as an attempt to fulfill the American Dream by using supernatural power.

Hillsong Church in Sydney

Prosperity theology has become popular among poor Americans, particularly those who seek personal and social advancement. It has seen significant growth in black and Hispanic churches and is particularly popular among immigrants. Apologists for the movement note its ethnic diversity and argue that it encompasses a variety of views. Joel Robbins of Cambridge University notes that most anthropologists attribute the theology's appeal to the poor—especially in the Global South—to the fact that it promises security and helps explain capitalism. Simon Coleman developed a theory based on the doctrine's rhetoric and the feeling of belonging it gave parishioners. In a study of the Swedish Word of Life Church, he noted that members felt part of a complex gift-exchange system, giving to God and then awaiting a gift in return (either from God directly or through another church member). Hillsong Church, the largest congregation in Australia, teaches a form of prosperity theology that emphasizes personal success. Marion Maddox has argued that this message has drawn a significant number of upwardly mobile Australians. Scott Morrison, who became the 30th Prime Minister of Australia in August 2018, is a member of Horizon Church, a Pentecostal church that believes in prosperity theology.

In a 1998 interview in Christianity Today, Bong Rin Ro of the Asia Graduate School of Theology suggested that the growth in popularity of prosperity theology in South Korea reflects a strong "shamanistic influence". Bong pointed to parallels between the tradition of paying shamans for healing and the prosperity theology's contractual doctrine about giving and blessings. Asia's economic problems, he argued, encouraged the growth of the doctrine in South Korea, though he claims it ignores the poor and needy. During the interview, he stated that he saw the problem beginning to be reversed, citing calls for renewed faith and other practices. Cho Yong-gi, pastor of Yoido Full Gospel Church in Seoul, has been criticized for shamanising Christianity. This criticism has focused on his healing and exorcism ministries and his promise of material blessings. Malaysian Christian writer Hwa Yung has defended Cho's healing and exorcism ministries, arguing that he successfully contextualized the Gospel in a culture where shamanism was still prevalent. However, Hwa criticizes Cho's teaching of earthly blessings for not reflecting a trust in God's daily provision and for their heavy focus on earthly wealth.

Comparisons with other movements

Historian Carter Lindberg of Boston University has drawn parallels between contemporary prosperity theology and the medieval indulgence trade. Comparisons have also been made to Calvinism, but John T. McNeill disputes the widespread semi-Weberian idea that Calvinism promoted the idea of prosperity as a marker of the elect. Coleman notes that several pre–20th century Christian movements in the United States taught that a holy lifestyle was a path to prosperity and that God-ordained hard work would bring blessing.

Coleman has speculated that modern-day prosperity theology borrows heavily from the New Thought movement, though he admits that the connection is sometimes unclear. Jenkins notes that critics draw a parallel between prosperity theology and the cargo cult phenomenon. While citing the popularity of prosperity theology in agrarian African communities, he argues that it can also bear similarities to traditional African religious rituals. J. Matthew Wilson of Southern Methodist University compares the movement to Black theology owing to its focus on uplifting oppressed groups, though he notes that it differs in its concentration on individual success rather than corporate political change.

Observers have proposed that some doctrines and beliefs found in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) are reminiscent of prosperity theology. This includes a similar interpretation of Malachi 3:10 found among LDS members as among Protestant prosperity theology and LDS lesson manuals teaching a "prosperity cycle" that shows material wealth follows from obedience to God. A Harper's Magazine editorial from 2011 alleged that these similarities were behind the Republican Party's economic policies, and further claimed that " In comparison to most other Protestant denominations, Mormonism has an established tradition of entrepreneurship and less ambivalence about the pursuit of wealth." However, it also explicitly noted that "None of the prosperity gospel’s proponents are themselves Mormon."

Criticism

Mainstream evangelicalism has consistently opposed prosperity theology as heretical and prosperity ministries have frequently come into conflict with other Christian groups, including those within the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements. Critics, such as Evangelical pastor Michael Catt, have argued that prosperity theology has little in common with traditional Christian theology. Prominent evangelical leaders, such as Rick Warren, Ben Witherington III, and Jerry Falwell, have harshly criticized the movement, sometimes denouncing it as heretical. Warren proposes that prosperity theology promotes the idolatry of money, and others argue that Jesus' teachings indicate a disdain for material wealth. In Mark: Jesus, Servant and Savior, R. Kent Hughes notes that some 1st-century rabbis portrayed material blessings as a sign of God's favor. He cites Jesus' statement in Mark 10:25 that "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (KJV) as evidence to oppose such thinking.

Other critics of the movement assail promises made by its leaders, arguing that the broad freedom from problems they promise is irresponsible. Televangelists are often criticized for abusing the faith of their listeners by enriching themselves through large donations. Prosperity theology has been opposed for not adequately explaining the poverty of the Apostles. For instance, some theologians believe that the life and writings of Paul the Apostle, who is believed to have experienced significant suffering during his ministry, are particularly in conflict with prosperity theology. Cathleen Falsani, religion writer in an opinion piece in The Washington Post, points to the conflict with basic Christian teachings "Jesus was born poor, and he died poor. During his earthly tenure, he spoke time and again about the importance of spiritual wealth and health. When he talked about material wealth, it was usually part of a cautionary tale."

In their book Health, Wealth and Happiness, theologians David Jones and Russell Woodbridge characterize the doctrine as poor theology. They suggest that righteousness cannot be earned and that the Bible does not promise an easy life. They argue that it is inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus and propose that the central message of the gospel should be Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. Jones and Woodbridge see Jesus' importance as vital, criticizing the prosperity gospel for marginalizing him in favor of a focus on human need. In another article, Jones criticizes the prosperity theology interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant, God's promise to bless Abraham's descendants, arguing that this blessing is spiritual and should already apply to all Christians. He also argues that the proponents of the doctrine misconstrue the atonement, criticizing their teaching that Jesus' death took away poverty as well as sin. He believes that this teaching is drawn from a misunderstanding of Jesus' life and criticizes John Avanzini's teaching that Jesus was wealthy as a misrepresentation, noting that Paul often taught Christians to give up their material possessions. Although he accepts giving as "praiseworthy", he questions the motives of prosperity theology and criticizes the "Law of Compensation", which teaches that when Christians give generously, God will give back more in return. Rather, Jones cites Jesus' teaching to "give, hoping for nothing in return". Jones and Woodbridge also note that Jesus instructed followers to focus on spiritual rewards, citing his command in Matthew 6:19–20 "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth ... But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven" (KJV). Jones criticizes the doctrine's view of faith: he does not believe that it should be used as a spiritual force for material gain but seen as selfless acceptance of God.

The General Council of the Assemblies of God USA criticized the doctrine of positive confession in 1980, noting examples of negative confessions in the Bible (where Biblical figures express fears and doubts) that had positive results and contrasting these examples with the focus on positive confessions taught by prosperity theology. The Council argues that the biblical Greek word often translated as "confess" literally translates as "to speak the same thing", and refers to both positive and negative confessions. The statement also criticizes the doctrine for failing to recognize the will of God: God's will should have precedence over the will of man, including their desires for wealth, and Christians should "recognize the sovereignty of God". The statement further criticizes prosperity theology for overlooking the importance of prayer, arguing that prayer should be used for all requests, not simply positive confession. The Council noted that Christians should expect suffering in this life. They urge readers to apply practical tests to positive confession, arguing that the doctrine appeals to those who are already in affluent societies but that many Christians in other societies are impoverished or imprisoned. Finally, the paper criticizes the distinction made by advocates of prosperity theology in the two Greek words that mean "speaking", arguing that the distinction is false and that they are used interchangeably in the Greek text. The Council accused prosperity theology of taking passages out of context to fulfill its own needs, with the result that doctrine of positive confession is contradictory to the holistic message of the Bible.

The president of the Nigerian Baptist Convention criticized prosperity theology as a damaging teaching which departs from the central message of the Bible, namely the cross of Jesus.

In April 2015, LDS apostle Dallin H. Oaks stated that people who believe in "the theology of prosperity" are deceived by riches. He continued by saying that the "possession of wealth or significant income is not a mark of heavenly favor, and their absence is not evidence of heavenly disfavor". He also cited how Jesus differentiated the attitudes towards money held by the young rich man in Mark 10:17–24, the good Samaritan, and Judas Iscariot in his betrayal. Oaks concluded this portion of his sermon by highlighting that the "root of all evil is not money but the love of money".

That same year, well known pastor and prosperity gospel advocate Creflo Dollar launched a fundraising campaign to replace a previous private jet with a $65 million Gulfstream G650. On the August 16, 2015 episode of his HBO weekly series Last Week Tonight, John Oliver satirized prosperity theology by announcing that he had established his own tax-exempt church, called Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption. In a lengthy segment, Oliver focused on what he characterized as the predatory conduct of televangelists who appeal for repeated gifts from people in financial distress or personal crises, and he criticized the very loose requirements for entities to obtain tax exempt status as churches under U.S. tax law. Oliver said that he would ultimately donate any money collected by the church to Doctors Without Borders.

Antonio Spadaro and Marcelo Figueroa, in the Jesuit journal La Civiltà Cattolica, examined the origins of the prosperity gospel in the United States and described it as a reductive version of the American Dream which had offered opportunities of success and prosperity unreachable in the Old World. The authors distinguished the prosperity gospel from Max Weber's Protestant ethic, noting that the Protestant ethic related prosperity to religiously inspired austerity while the prosperity gospel saw prosperity as the simple result of personal faith. They criticized many aspects of the prosperity gospel, noting particularly the tendency of believers to lack compassion for the poor, since their poverty was seen as a sign that they had not followed the rules and therefore are not loved by God.

A 2019 documentary entitled American Gospel: Christ Alone presents a number of critical analyses of the prosperity gospel while following the stories of individuals whose lives had intersected with prosperity teachings, including Costi Hinn, nephew of Benny Hinn.

The reality television series Preachers of L.A. follows the lives of pastors who adhere to prosperity theology. In a review, Cathleen Falsani described it as imitating other reality series with "McMansions, bling, hair extensions, luxury cars, pontificating, preening and epic delusions of grandeur".

The Gospel of Wealth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Carnegie portrait (detail) in the National Portrait Gallery

"Wealth", more commonly known as "The Gospel of Wealth", is an article written by Andrew Carnegie in June of 1889 that describes the responsibility of philanthropy by the new upper class of self-made rich. The article was published in the North American Review, an opinion magazine for America's establishment. It was later published as "The Gospel of Wealth" in the Pall Mall Gazette.

Carnegie proposed that the best way of dealing with the new phenomenon of wealth inequality was for the wealthy to utilize their surplus means in a responsible and thoughtful manner (similar to the concept of noblesse oblige). This approach was contrasted with traditional bequest (patrimony), where wealth is handed down to heirs, and other forms of bequest e.g. where wealth is willed to the state for public purposes. Benjamin Soskis, a historian of philanthropy, refers to the article as the 'urtext' of modern philanthropy.

Carnegie argued that surplus wealth is put to best use (i.e. produces the greatest net benefit to society) when it is administered carefully by the wealthy. Carnegie also argues against wasteful use of capital in the form of extravagance, irresponsible spending, or self-indulgence, instead promoting the administration of said capital over the course of one's lifetime toward the cause of reducing the stratification between the rich and poor. As a result, the wealthy should administer their riches responsibly and not in a way that encourages "the slothful, the drunken, the unworthy".

At the age of 35, Carnegie decided to limit his personal wealth and donate the surplus to benevolent causes. He was determined to be remembered for his good deeds rather than his wealth. He became a "radical" philanthropist. Prior to publishing his ideas about wealth, he began donating to his favorite causes, starting by donating a public bath to his hometown of Dunfermline. As Carnegie tried to live his life in a way that the poor could benefit from his wealth, he decided he needed to share his ideas with the public.

Assertions

The Gospel of Wealth asserts that hard work and perseverance lead to wealth.

Carnegie based his philosophy on the observation that the heirs of large fortunes frequently squandered them in riotous living rather than nurturing and growing them. Even bequeathing one's fortune to charity was no guarantee that it would be used wisely, due to the fact that there was no guarantee that a charitable organization not under one's direction would use the money in accordance with one's wishes. Carnegie disapproved of charitable giving that maintained the poor in their impoverished state, and urged a movement toward the creation of a new mode of giving that would create opportunities for the beneficiaries of the gift to better themselves. As a result, the gift would not be simply consumed, but would be productive of even greater wealth throughout the house.

In "The Gospel of Wealth", Carnegie examines the modes of distributing accumulated wealth and capital to the communities from which they originate. He preached that ostentatious living and amassing private treasures were wrong. He praised the high British taxes on the estates of dead millionaires, remarking that "By taxing estates heavily at death the State marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life. It is desirable that nations should go much further in this direction."

Carnegie made it clear that the duty of the rich was to live modest lifestyles, and that any surplus of money they had was best suited for re-circulation back into society where it could be used to support the greater good. He shunned aristocratic chains of inheritance and argued that dependents should be supported by their work with major moderation, with the bulk of excess wealth to be spent on enriching the community. In cases where excess wealth was held until death, he advocated its apprehension by the state on a progressive scale: "Indeed, it is difficult to set bounds to the share of a rich man's estates which should go at his death to the public through the agency of the State, and by all means such taxes should be granted, beginning at nothing upon moderate sums to dependents, and increasing rapidly as the amounts swell, until of the millionaire's hoard, at least the other half comes to the privy coffer of the State.".

Reception

When Carnegie Steel busted the union in 1892, Carnegie was able to keep himself from blame because he focused on his new doctrine for the wealthy. The Homestead Strike ended in a showdown between 300 Pinkerton guards and a crowd of steel workers and supporters devolved into an exchange of gunfire. This outbreak left seven workers and three guards dead, and many more wounded. It made headlines around the world, and reporters reached Carnegie, who was in Scotland at the time. When questioned, Carnegie called the violence "deplorable" but otherwise pleaded ignorance and stated, "I have given up all active control of the business." Subsequently he began to focus on his philanthropic work and teaching the Gospel of Wealth. Largely as a result of said philanthropic work, the Homestead Strike did little to mar his reputation.

Carnegie's controversial views on wealth sparked a trans-Atlantic debate that argued the nature, purpose, and disposition of wealth.

William Ewart Gladstone

William Ewart Gladstone, the head of the Liberal Party in England, and a friend of Carnegie's, had some sharp remarks on the publication. Even though they were close friends and had similar political ideals, Gladstone did not agree with Carnegie's paper. Gladstone defended primogeniture, unlimited inheritance, and the British Aristocracy. This led to many other critics joining Gladstone in denouncing Carnegie's "radical" philanthropic ways.

These critical reviews led Carnegie to publish a series of essays defending himself. He defended individualism, private property, and the accumulation of personal wealth on the grounds that they benefited the human race in the long run. In an effort to convince his critics that he wasn't saying everyone should get free handouts from the upper class, he edited his original doctrine, so that it read "Help those who will help themselves, to provide part of the means by which those who desire to improve may do so." Since many interpreted his writing to mean that all those in poverty should be assisted by the wealthy, it was necessary for Carnegie to clarify that charity has its limitations.

Phoebe Apperson Hearst's "Gospel of Wealth"

In 1901, U.S. Senator Jonathan Prentiss Dolliver wrote an article for the celebrity magazine Success, titled "Phoebe Apperson Hearst and the New Gospel of Wealth". Hearst was an American philanthropist and suffragist. According to Dolliver, Hearst saw inadequacies of public schools and was concerned about urban poverty and vice. She, like Carnegie, believed that as a millionairess, it was her duty to help those less fortunate. The purpose of Dolliver's article was to explain Hearst's "Gospel of Wealth" and illustrate how she should be viewed as a complementary equal to men like Carnegie. She declared that women who were wealthy had a sacred and moral duty to give away their fortunes to causes, especially progressive education and reform, to benefit their communities. Like Carnegie, Hearst was very concerned with giving the lower class the opportunity to be educated at the same level at which the upper class was educated. Also like Carnegie, she established her own free public library. Hers was located in Anaconda, Montana.

Impact on philanthropy

Carnegie Free Library of Braddock in Braddock, Pennsylvania, built in 1888, was the first Carnegie Library in the United States.

Carnegie put his philosophy into practice through a program of donations to endow public libraries, known as 'Carnegie libraries' in cities and towns throughout the United States and the English-speaking world, with the idea that he was thus providing people with the tools to better themselves. He stipulated that the municipality must pass an ordinance establishing a tax to support the library's ongoing operating costs after the initial grant provided the costs for building and equipping the library. Each of these organizations had its own endowment and its own board of trustees. Many of them still exist today.

After several communities used their grants on extravagant buildings, Carnegie established a system of architectural guidelines that mandated simplicity and functionality. He established the Carnegie Corporation to continue his program of giving after his death.

Effective altruism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_altruism

Effective altruism (EA) is a 21st-century philosophical and social movement that advocates "using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible, and taking action on that basis". People who pursue the goals of effective altruism, sometimes called effective altruists, may choose careers based on the amount of good that they expect the career to achieve or donate to charities based on the goal of maximising positive impact. They may work on the prioritization of scientific projects, entrepreneurial ventures, and policy initiatives estimated to save the most lives or reduce the most suffering.

Effective altruists aim to emphasize impartiality and the global equal consideration of interests when choosing beneficiaries. Popular cause priorities within effective altruism include global health and development, social inequality, animal welfare, and risks to the survival of humanity over the long-term future.

The movement developed during the 2000s, and the name effective altruism was coined in 2011. Philosophers influential to the movement include Peter Singer, Toby Ord, and William MacAskill. What began as a set of evaluation techniques advocated by a diffuse coalition evolved into an identity. With approximately 7,000 people active in the effective altruism community and strong ties to the elite schools in the United States and Britain, effective altruism has become associated with Silicon Valley and the technology industry, forming a tight subculture.

The movement received mainstream attention and criticism with the bankruptcy of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX as founder Sam Bankman-Fried was a major funder of effective altruism causes prior to late 2022. Within the Bay Area, it received criticism for having a culture that has been described as toxic and sexually exploitative towards women, which led to conversations inside the community about how to create an environment that can better prevent and fight sexual misconduct.

History

Peter Singer and William MacAskill are among several philosophers who have helped popularize effective altruism.

Beginning in the latter half of the 2000s, several communities centered around altruist, rationalist, and futurological concerns started to converge, such as:

In 2011, Giving What We Can and 80,000 Hours decided to incorporate into an umbrella organization and held a vote for their new name; the "Centre for Effective Altruism" was selected. The Effective Altruism Global conference has been held since 2013. As the movement formed, it attracted individuals who were not part of a specific community, but who had been following the Australian moral philosopher Peter Singer's work on applied ethics, particularly "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" (1972), Animal Liberation (1975), and The Life You Can Save (2009). Singer himself used the term in 2013, in a TED talk titled "The Why and How of Effective Altruism".

Sam Bankman-Fried, the eventual founder of the cryptocurrency exchange FTX, had a seminal lunch with philosopher William MacAskill in 2012 while he was an undergraduate at MIT in which MacAskill encouraged him to go earn money and donate it, rather than volunteering his time for causes. Bankman-Fried went on to a career in investing and around 2019 became more publicly associated with the effective altruism movement, announcing that his goal was to "donate as much as [he] can". Bankman-Fried founded the FTX Future Fund, which brought on MacAskill as one of its advisers, and which made a $13.9 million grant to the Centre for Effective Altruism where MacAskill holds a board role.

Notable publications and media

A number of books and articles related to effective altruism have been published that have codified, criticized, and brought more attention to the movement. In 2015, philosopher Peter Singer published The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism Is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically.[20] The same year, the Scottish philosopher and ethicist William MacAskill published Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Make a Difference.

In 2018, American news website Vox launched its Future Perfect section, led by journalist Dylan Matthews, which publishes articles and podcasts on "finding the best ways to do good".

In 2019, Oxford University Press published the volume Effective Altruism: Philosophical Issues, edited by Hilary Greaves and Theron Pummer.

More recent books have emphasized concerns for future generations. In 2020, the Australian moral philosopher Toby Ord published The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity, while MacAskill published What We Owe the Future in 2022.

In 2023, Oxford University Press published the volume The Good it Promises, The Harm it Does: Critical Essays on Effective Altruism, edited by Carol J. Adams, Alice Crary, and Lori Gruen.

Controversies

After the collapse of FTX in late 2022, the movement underwent additional public scrutiny.

Bankman-Fried's relationship with effective altruism has been called into question as a public relations strategy, while the movement's embrace of him proved damaging to its reputation. Some journalists asked whether the effective altruist movement was "complicit" in FTX's collapse, because it was convenient for leaders to overlook specific warnings about Bankman-Fried's behavior or questionable ethics at the trading firm Alameda.

However, several leaders of the effective altruism movement, including William MacAskill and Robert Wiblin, condemned FTX's actions. MacAskill emphasized that bringing about good consequences does not justify violating rights or sacrificing integrity.

Critiques arose not only in relation to Bankman-Fried's role and his close association with William MacAskill, but also concerning issues of exclusion and sexual harassment. A 2023 Bloomberg article featured some members of the effective altruism community who criticized the philosophy as masking a culture of predatory behavior. In a 2023 Time magazine article, seven women reported misconduct and controversy in the effective altruism movement. They accused men within the movement, typically in the Bay Area, of using their power to groom younger women for polyamorous sexual relationships. The accusers argued that the majority male demographic and the polyamorous subculture combine to create an environment where sexual misconduct can be tolerated, excused or rationalised away. In response to the accusations, the Centre for Effective Altruism said that some of the alleged perpetrators had already been banned, and the organization would address the ones they were made newly aware of. The organization also defended itself by noting it is challenging to discern to what extent sexual misconduct issues were specific to the effective altruism community or reflective of broader societal problems of the exploitation of women. Propelled by the situation, members of the community discussed how to create an environment more capable of preventing and fighting sexual misconduct.

Philosophy

Effective altruists focus on the many philosophical questions related to the most effective ways to benefit others.[44][45] Such philosophical questions shift the starting point of reasoning from "what to do" to "why" and "how". There is little consensus on the answers, and there are differences between effective altruists who believe that they should do the most good they possibly can with all of their resources and those who only try do the most good they can within a defined budget.

According to MacAskill, the view of effective altruism as doing the most good one can within a defined budget can be compatible with a wide variety of views on morality and meta-ethics, as well as traditional religious teachings on altruism such as in Christianity. Effective altruism can also be in tension with religion where religion emphasizes spending resources on worship and evangelism instead of causes that do the most good.

Other than Peter Singer and William MacAskill, philosophers associated with effective altruism include Nick Bostrom, Toby Ord, Hilary Greaves, and Derek Parfit. Economist Yew-Kwang Ng conducted similar research in welfare economics and moral philosophy.

The Centre for Effective Altruism lists the following four principles that unite effective altruism: prioritization, impartial altruism, open truthseeking, and a collaborative spirit. To support people's ability to act altruistically on the basis of impartial reasoning, the effective altruism movement promotes values and actions such as a collaborative spirit, honesty, transparency, and publicly pledging to donate a certain percentage of income or other resources.

Impartiality

Effective altruism aims to emphasize impartial reasoning in that everyone's well-being counts equally. Singer, in his 1972 essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", wrote:

It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor's child ten yards away from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away ... The moral point of view requires us to look beyond the interests of our own society.

Impartiality combined with seeking to do the most good leads to prioritizing benefits to those who are in a worse state, because anyone who happens to be worse off will benefit more from an improvement in their state, all other things being equal.

Scope of moral consideration

One issue related to moral impartiality is the question of which beings are deserving of moral consideration. Some effective altruists consider the well-being of non-human animals in addition to humans, and advocate for animal welfare issues such as ending factory farming. Those who subscribe to longtermism include future generations as possible beneficiaries and try to improve the moral value of the long-term future by, for example, reducing existential risks.

Criticism of impartiality

The drowning child analogy in Singer's essay provoked philosophical debate. In response to a version of Singer's drowning child analogy, philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah in 2006 asked whether the most effective action of a man in an expensive suit, confronted with a drowning child, would not be to save the child and ruin his suit—but rather, sell the suit and donate the proceeds to charity.  Appiah believed that he "should save the drowning child and ruin my suit". In a 2015 debate, when presented with a similar scenario of either saving a child from a burning building or saving a Picasso painting to sell and donate the proceeds to charity, MacAskill responded that the effective altruist should save and sell the Picasso. Psychologist Alan Jern called MacAskill's choice "unnatural, even distasteful, to many people", although Jern concluded that effective altruism raises questions "worth asking". MacAskill later endorsed a "qualified definition of effective altruism" in which effective altruists try to do the most good "without violating constraints" such as any obligations that someone might have to help those nearby.

William Schambra has criticized the impartial logic of effective altruism, arguing that benevolence arising from reciprocity and face-to-face interactions is stronger and more prevalent than charity based on impartial, detached altruism. Such community-based charitable giving, he wrote, is foundational to civil society and, in turn, democracy. Larissa MacFarquhar said that people have diverse moral emotions, and she suggested that some effective altruists are not unemotional and detached but feel as much empathy for distant strangers as for people nearby. Ross Douthat of The New York Times criticized the movement's "'telescopic philanthropy' aimed at distant populations" and envisioned "effective altruists sitting around in a San Francisco skyscraper calculating how to relieve suffering halfway around the world while the city decays beneath them", while he also praised the movement for providing "useful rebukes to the solipsism and anti-human pessimism that haunts the developed world today".use prioritization

A key component of effective altruism is "cause prioritization". Cause prioritization is based on the principle of cause neutrality, the idea that resources should be distributed to causes based on what will do the most good, irrespective of the identity of the beneficiary and the way in which they are helped. By contrast, many non-profits emphasize effectiveness and evidence with respect to a single cause such as education or climate change.

One tool that EA-based organizations may use to prioritize cause areas is the importance, tractability, and neglectedness framework. Importance is the amount of value that would be created if a problem were solved, tractability is the fraction of a problem that would be solved if additional resources were devoted to it, and neglectedness is the quantity of resources already committed to a cause.

The information required for cause prioritization may involve data analysis, comparing possible outcomes with what would have happened under other conditions (counterfactual reasoning), and identifying uncertainty. The difficulty of these tasks has led to the creation of organizations that specialize in researching the relative prioritization of causes.

Criticism of cause prioritization

This practice of "weighing causes and beneficiaries against one another" was criticized by Ken Berger and Robert Penna of Charity Navigator for being "moralistic, in the worst sense of the word" and "elitist". William MacAskill responded to Berger and Penna, defending the rationale for comparing one beneficiary's interests against another and concluding that such comparison is difficult and sometimes impossible but often necessary. MacAskill argued that the more pernicious form of elitism was that of donating to art galleries (and like institutions) instead of charity. Ian David Moss suggested that the criticism of cause prioritization could be resolved by what he called "domain-specific effective altruism", which would encourage "that principles of effective altruism be followed within an area of philanthropic focus, such as a specific cause or geography" and could resolve the conflict between local and global perspectives for some donors.

Cost-effectiveness

Some charities are considered to be far more effective than others, as charities may spend different amounts of money to achieve the same goal, and some charities may not achieve the goal at all. Effective altruists seek to identify interventions that are highly cost-effective in expectation. Many interventions have uncertain benefits, and the expected value of one intervention can be higher than that of another if its benefits are larger, even if it has a smaller chance of succeeding. One metric effective altruists use to choose between health interventions is the estimated number of quality-adjusted life years (QALY) added per dollar.

Some effective altruist organizations prefer randomized controlled trials as a primary form of evidence, as they are commonly considered the highest level of evidence in healthcare research. Others have argued that requiring this stringent level of evidence unnecessarily narrows the focus to issues where the evidence can be developed. Kelsey Piper argues that uncertainty is not a good reason for effective altruists to avoid acting on their best understanding of the world, because most interventions have mixed evidence regarding their effectiveness.

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry and others have warned about the "measurement problem", with issues such as medical research or government reform worked on "one grinding step at a time", and results being hard to measure with controlled experiments. Gobry also argues that such interventions risk being undervalued by the effective altruism movement. As effective altruism emphasizes a data-centric approach, critics say principles which do not lend themselves to quantification—justice, fairness, equality—get left in the sidelines.

Counterfactual reasoning

Counterfactual reasoning involves considering the possible outcomes of alternative choices. It has been employed by effective altruists in a number of contexts, including career choice. Many people assume that the best way to help others is through direct methods, such as working for a charity or providing social services. However, since there is a high supply of candidates for such positions, it makes sense to compare the amount of good one candidate does to how much good the next-best candidate would do. According to this reasoning, the marginal impact of a career is likely to be smaller than the gross impact.

Differences from utilitarianism

Although EA aims for maximizing like utilitarianism, EA differs from utilitarianism in a few ways; for example, EA does not claim that people should always maximize the good regardless of the means, and EA does not claim that the good is the sum total of well-being. Toby Ord has described utilitarians as "number-crunching", compared with most effective altruists whom he called "guided by conventional wisdom tempered by an eye to the numbers".

Cause priorities

The principles and goals of effective altruism are wide enough to support furthering any cause that allows people to do the most good, while taking into account cause neutrality. Many people in the effective altruism movement have prioritized global health and development, animal welfare, and mitigating risks that threaten the future of humanity. Global health and development.

The alleviation of global poverty and neglected tropical diseases has been a focus of some of the earliest and most prominent organizations associated with effective altruism. Charity evaluator GiveWell was founded by Holden Karnofsky and Elie Hassenfeld in 2007 to address poverty, where they believe additional donations to be the most impactful. GiveWell's leading recommendations include: malaria prevention charities Against Malaria Foundation and Malaria Consortium, deworming charities Schistosomiasis Control Initiative and Deworm the World Initiative, and GiveDirectly for direct cash transfers to beneficiaries. The organization The Life You Can Save, which originated from Singer's book of the same name, works to alleviate global poverty by promoting evidence-backed charities, conducting philanthropy education, and changing the culture of giving in affluent countries.

Animal welfare

Improving animal welfare has been a focus of many effective altruists. Singer and Animal Charity Evaluators (ACE) have argued that effective altruists should prioritize changes to factory farming over pet welfare. 60 billion land animals are slaughtered and between 1 and 2.7 trillion individual fish are killed each year for human consumption.

A number of non-profit organizations have been established that adopt an effective altruist approach toward animal welfare. ACE evaluates animal charities based on their cost-effectiveness and transparency, particularly those tackling factory farming. Other animal initiatives affiliated with effective altruism include Animal Ethics' and Wild Animal Initiative's work on wild animal suffering, addressing farm animal suffering with cultured meat, and expanding the circle of concern so that people care more about all kinds of animals. Faunalytics focuses on animal welfare research. The Sentience Institute is a think tank founded to expand the moral circle to other species.

Long-term future and global catastrophic risks

The ethical stance of longtermism, emphasizing the importance of positively influencing the long-term future, developed closely in relation to effective altruism. Longtermists have proposed that the welfare of future individuals is just as important as the welfare of currently existing individuals, as the prioritization of the former is coextensive with the wellness of the latter. Toby Ord has stated that "the people of the future may be even more powerless to protect themselves from the risks we impose than the dispossessed of our own time".

Existential risks, such as dangers associated with biotechnology and advanced artificial intelligence, are often highlighted and the subject of active research. Existential risks have such huge impacts that achieving a very small change in such a risk—say a 0.0001-percent reduction—"might be worth more than saving a billion people today", reported Gideon Lewis-Kraus in 2022, but he added that nobody in the EA community openly endorses such an extreme conclusion.

Organizations that work actively on research and advocacy for improving the long-term future, and have connections with the effective altruism community, are the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford, the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge, and the Future of Life Institute. In addition, the Machine Intelligence Research Institute is focused on the more narrow mission of managing advanced artificial intelligence.

Approaches

Effective altruists pursue different approaches to doing good, such as donating to effective charitable organizations, using their career to make more money for donations or directly contributing their labor, and starting new non-profit or for-profit ventures.

Donation

Financial donation

Many effective altruists engage in significant charitable donation. Some believe it is a moral duty to alleviate suffering through donations if other possible uses of those funds do not offer comparable benefits to oneself. Some even lead a frugal lifestyle in order to donate more.

Giving What We Can (GWWC) is an organization whose members pledge to donate at least 10% of their future income to the causes that they believe are the most effective. GWWC was founded in 2009 by Toby Ord, who lives on £18,000 ($27,000) per year and donates the balance of his income. In 2020, Ord said that people had donated over $100 million to date through the GWWC pledge.

Founders Pledge is a similar initiative, founded out of the non-profit Founders Forum for Good, whereby entrepreneurs make a legally binding commitment to donate a percentage of their personal proceeds to charity in the event that they sell their business. As of April 2023, nearly 1,800 entrepreneurs had pledged over $9 billion and nearly $900 million had been donated.

An estimated $416 million was donated to effective charities identified by the movement in 2019, representing a 37% annual growth rate since 2015. Two of the largest donors in the effective altruism community, Dustin Moskovitz, who had become wealthy through co-founding Facebook, and his wife Cari Tuna, hope to donate most of their net worth of over $11 billion for effective altruist causes through the private foundation Good Ventures. Others influenced by effective altruism include Sam Bankman-Fried, as well as professional poker players Dan Smith and Liv Boeree. Jaan Tallinn, the Estonian billionaire founder of Skype, is known for donating to some effective altruist causes.

Organ donation

EA has been used to argue that humans should donate organs, whilst alive or after death, and some effective altruists do.

Career choice

Effective altruists often consider using their career to do good, both by direct service and indirectly through their consumption, investment, and donation decisions. 80,000 Hours is an organization that conducts research and gives advice on which careers have the largest positive impact.

Earning to give

Earning to give involves deliberately pursuing a high-earning career for the purpose of donating a significant portion of earned income, typically because of a desire to do effective altruism. Advocates of earning to give contend that maximizing the amount one can donate to charity is an important consideration for individuals when deciding what career to pursue.

Founding effective organizations

Some effective altruists start non-profit or for-profit organizations to implement cost-effective ways of doing good. On the non-profit side, for example, Michael Kremer and Rachel Glennerster conducted randomized controlled trials in Kenya to find out the best way to improve students' test scores. They tried new textbooks and flip charts, as well as smaller class sizes, but found that the only intervention that raised school attendance was treating intestinal worms in children. Based on their findings, they started the Deworm the World Initiative. From 2013 to August 2022, GiveWell designated Deworm the World (now run by nonprofit Evidence Action) as a top charity based on their assessment that mass deworming is "generally highly cost-effective"; however, there is substantial uncertainty about the benefits of mass deworming programs, with some studies finding long-term effects and others not. The Happier Lives Institute conducts research on the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in developing countries; Canopie develops an app that provides cognitive behavioural therapy to women who are expecting or postpartum; Giving Green analyzes and ranks climate interventions for effectiveness.  The Fish Welfare Initiative works on improving animal welfare in fishing and aquaculture; and the Lead Exposure Elimination Project works on reducing lead poisoning in developing countries.

Incremental versus systemic change

While much of the initial focus of effective altruism was on direct strategies such as health interventions and cash transfers, more systematic social, economic, and political reforms have also attracted attention. Mathew Snow in Jacobin wrote that effective altruism "implores individuals to use their money to procure necessities for those who desperately need them, but says nothing about the system that determines how those necessities are produced and distributed in the first place". Philosopher Amia Srinivasan criticized William MacAskill's Doing Good Better for a perceived lack of coverage of global inequality and oppression, while noting that effective altruism is in principle open to whichever means of doing good is most effective, including political advocacy aimed at systemic change. Srinivasan said, "Effective altruism has so far been a rather homogeneous movement of middle-class white men fighting poverty through largely conventional means, but it is at least in theory a broad church." Judith Lichtenberg in The New Republic said that effective altruists "neglect the kind of structural and political change that is ultimately necessary". An article in The Ecologist published in 2016 argued that effective altruism is an apolitical attempt to solve political problems, describing the concept as "pseudo-scientific". The Ethiopian-American AI scientist Timnit Gebru has condemned effective altruists "for acting as though their concerns are above structural issues as racism and colonialism", as Gideon Lewis-Kraus summarized her views in 2022.

Philosophers such as Susan Dwyer, Joshua Stein, and Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò have criticized effective altruism for furthering the disproportionate influence of wealthy individuals in domains that should be the responsibility of democratic governments and organizations.

Arguments have been made that movements focused on systemic or institutional change are compatible with effective altruism. Philosopher Elizabeth Ashford posits that people are obligated to both donate to effective aid charities and to reform the structures that are responsible for poverty. Open Philanthropy has given grants for progressive advocacy work in areas such as criminal justice, economic stabilization, and housing reform, despite pegging the success of political reform as being "highly uncertain".

Psychological research

Researchers in psychology and related fields have identified psychological barriers to effective altruism that can cause people to choose less effective options when they engage in altruistic activities such as charitable giving.

Other criticism of the movement

While originally the movement leaders were associated with frugal lifestyles, the arrival of big donors, including Bankman-Fried, led to more spending and opulence, which seemed incongruous to the movement's espoused values. In 2022, the Centre for Effective Altruism purchased the estate of Wytham Abbey for the purpose of running workshops.

Other prominent people

Businessman Elon Musk described MacAskill's book What We Owe the Future as "a close match for my philosophy".

Actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt has publicly stated he would like to bring the ideas of effective altruism to a broader audience.

Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, has called effective altruism an "incredibly flawed movement" that shows "very weird emergent behavior". Effective altruist concerns about AI risk were present among the OpenAI board members who fired Altman in November 2023.

Factfulness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AuthorHans Rosling, Anna Rosling Rönnlund, Ola Rosling
GenreNon-fiction
PublisherFlatiron Books (US)
Sceptre (UK)
Publication date
April 3, 2018
Media typePrint (Hardcover)
Pages341
ISBN978-1-250-10781-7
WebsiteGapminder: Factfulness (the book)

Factfulness: Ten Reasons We're Wrong About the World – and Why Things Are Better Than You Think is a 2018 book by Swedish physician, professor of international health at Karolinska Institute and statistician Hans Rosling with his son Ola Rosling and daughter-in-law Anna Rosling Rönnlund. The book was published posthumously a year after Hans Rosling died from pancreatic cancer. In the book, Rosling suggests that the vast majority of people are wrong about the state of the world. He demonstrates that his test subjects believe the world is poorer, less healthy, and more dangerous than it actually is, attributing this not to random chance but to misinformation.

Rosling recommends thinking about the world as divided into four levels based on income brackets (rather than the prototypical developed/developing framework) and suggests ten instincts that prevent us from seeing real progress in the world.

Bill Gates highlighted the book as one of his suggested five books worth reading for summer 2018, offering to purchase a copy for any 2018 college graduate upon request.

Summary

(Left to right) Anna Rosling Rönnlund, Hans Rosling, and Ola Rosling discuss their book Factfulness in 2016.

Four income levels

Rosling criticizes the notion of dividing the world into the "developed world" and the "developing world" by calling it an outdated view. He shows that today most countries are "developed" and the others are not how developing countries were when the term became popular. Instead, he offers a four category model based on income per person (adjusted for price differences):

  1. Level 1: less than $2 a day
  2. Level 2: $2–$8 a day
  3. Level 3: $8–$32 a day
  4. Level 4: $32+ a day

He says that the majority of the countries in the world are on Level 2 or Level 3. A select few countries are on Level 1 and Level 4.

World getting better

The book also stresses that many people think the world is getting worse when, in fact, it is not. Early in the book the authors describe a survey in which 10,000 recipients were polled for their views on the state of the world. They interpret the survey’s results as showing that 80% of recipients knew less about the world than "chimps" would have, i.e. that they did worse than random guessing. This, the authors claim, shows that the media systematically skew data and trends and select stories to make people think that the world is getting worse.

Rules of thumb

Ten rules of thumb helping to avoid overdramatic interpretations
Number Dramatic instinct Example Rule of thumb Example
1 Gap instinct 'Look at the gap!' Locate the majority 'Is there really a gap?'
2 Negativity instinct 'It's getting worse!' Expect negative news 'Would improvement get attention?'.
3 Straight line instinct 'It just continues!' Imagine bending lines 'Why would this line not bend?'
4 Fear instinct 'It's scary!' Calculate the risk 'Is it really dangerous?'
5 Size instinct 'It's big!' Check the proportions 'Is it big in comparison?'
6 Generalization instinct 'They're all the same!' Check your categories 'How are they different?'
7 Destiny instinct 'It never changes!' Notice slow changes 'Isn't it always changing slowly?'
8 Single-perspective instinct 'This is the solution!' Use multiple tools 'What other solutions exist?'
9 Blame instinct 'That's the bad guy!' Resist pointing fingers 'What system made this possible?'
10 Urgency instinct 'It is now or never!' Take small steps 'Can we take decisions as we go?'

Reception

Jim O'Neill, reviewing for Nature, described the book as "a fabulous read, succinct and lively", and believed Rosling's use of multiple-choice questions throughout the book "enlivens the chapters". Criticism was directed towards it not being comprehensive, with O'Neill noting ongoing challenges such as antimicrobial resistance being omitted. He concluded that "a just tribute to this book and the man would be a global day of celebration for facts about our world."

Christian Berggren, a Swedish professor of industrial management, has questioned the authors' claims and suggested that Rosling's own thinking shows a bias towards Pollyannaism. Particularly, Berggren criticized the authors for understating the importance of the European migrant crisis, the environmental impacts of the Anthropocene, and continued global population growth. Furthermore, Berggren remarks that "Factfulness includes many graphs of 'bad things in decline' and 'good things on the rise' but not a single graph of problematic phenomena that are on the rise." It "employs a biased selection of variables, avoids analysis of negative trends, and does not discuss any of the serious challenges related to continual population growth." Berggren raises concerns that the simplistic worldview this book offers could have serious consequences.

Bill Gates has cited Factfulness as "one of the best books [he's] ever read." In an interview with Time, Gates states that Factfulness "offers clear, actionable advice for how to overcome our innate biases and see the world more factfully." In particular, Gates found the four income levels framework a "revelation". Of the ten rules of thumb given in the book, Gates worries most about the blame instinct, not for creating scapegoats, but for turning people into heroes. In June 2018, Bill Gates offered free copies, to all new graduates of U.S. colleges and universities.

Philosophy of self

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_self The philosophy of self ...