Effective altruism is a movement gaining traction of using statistics and reason to altruism. It recognizes good intentions don’t yield good results. An example of a well-intentioned disaster is the Playpump. Just because you get a warm, fuzzy feeling in your chest doesn’t mean you’ve done much good. I’m no doctor, but you might want to get that warm, fuzzy feeing checked out.

One criticism is that being rational about charity sucks away the giving spirit. It reminds me of a music student saying free form jazz is the purest form of the musical spirit. Just because something has rhyme and reason doesn’t make it cold and heartless. Reason and emotion aren’t black and white, they’re both a shade of gray.

Another concern is the inability to measure some initiatives. Some initiatives might be underfunded because they can’t prove how much good they would do, even if they would do a great amount of good. This is a valid claim, and a limitation of evidence driven altruism.

I want to draw a distinction between active and passive altruism. An example of active altruism would be going to Bangladesh to help the poor or picking up trash at your local park. Passive altruism would be something that barely affects your time. Examples would be giving a pair of socks to homeless people on your way to work, donating to a charity, or just listening to someone in despair. Although these take emotional expenditure, with practice these emotions become as light as spontaneous bouts of wind.

Be wary of people who do good so their name/face is associated with the action. The people who just do what needs to be done with or without recognition are the true altruists. If courage is continuing to act in the face of fear, charity is continuing to give despite the lack of emotional impetus.