Effective altruism
A framework that applies evidence, reasoning, and cost-effectiveness analysis to charitable giving — asking not just 'is this good' but 'is this the best use of the dollar.'
Effective altruism (EA) is a school of thought that emerged in the mid-2000s, centered on the idea that we can meaningfully compare the impact-per-dollar of different charitable interventions. Organizations like GiveWell publish deep evaluations of specific charities and rank them by cost-per-life-saved or cost-per-QALY (quality-adjusted life year).
The core practical claim: intervention A might cost $5,000 per life saved while intervention B costs $50,000, and if both interventions save comparable lives, the first is 10× more effective per dollar. Following that logic honestly leads to giving heavily to a small number of highly effective causes rather than distributing widely.
EA has been influential in charity evaluation, in some tech-adjacent giving circles, and in longer-term cause areas (AI safety, pandemic preparedness). It has also been criticized — for narrow utilitarianism, for underweighting local knowledge and community trust, and for high-profile institutional failures within the movement.
The concept is worth knowing whether you agree with the framework or not, because it forces a specific question: if the goal is to do good, how would you compare two different ways of doing it?