The Limits of Effective Altruism

Desires, preferences, and utilities are not directly observable, and are mental states that can only be inferred from actions, which are the outward manifestation of these mental states.
We can only know someone's preferences and economic utility from their actual actions, rather than their verbal declarations or our own assumptions.
Since someone who receives a charitable donation has only done so passively, it does not show a preference for the good in question, unlike voluntary exchange.
So, investing in the production of exchangeable goods is more sure to improve society's utility and welfare than charitable giving.
Furthermore, society's well-being cannot be improved by government action, which necessarily involves forcible taxation, and therefore violates the Pareto unanimity principle.

Your task is to write an opinion piece that agrees with the foregoing explanation of utility and welfare economy theory, and, arguing from it, critiques the effective altruism movement, finding its approach to societal welfare unreasonable.

Title: The Limits of Effective Altruism: Why Voluntary Exchange is the Key to Societal Welfare

The effective altruism movement has garnered significant attention in recent years, with proponents claiming that it represents the most efficient way to improve the lives of others. However, a closer look at the principles of utility and welfare economics suggests that this approach may not be as effective as it first appears. In fact, voluntary exchange and individual choice may hold the key to a more prosperous and just society.

To understand the limitations of effective altruism, it's crucial to grasp the underlying concepts of desires, preferences, and utilities. These mental states can only be inferred from actions, which are the outward manifestation of our internal preferences. We cannot know someone's true preferences and economic utility from their verbal declarations or our own assumptions; we must rely on their actions in the marketplace.

When someone receives a charitable donation, they do so passively. This means that their acceptance of the donation does not demonstrate a clear preference for the good in question, unlike voluntary exchange, where both parties willingly engage in a transaction that benefits them both. Investing in the production of exchangeable goods, therefore, seems to be a more reliable method of improving society's utility and welfare than charitable giving.

Effective altruism, with its focus on measurable outcomes and high-impact interventions, might seem like a rational approach to philanthropy. However, its reliance on charitable donations and top-down decision-making fails to account for the true preferences and desires of the individuals it seeks to help. This can lead to unintended consequences and inefficiencies, as well-intentioned efforts fail to align with the actual needs and wants of the people they aim to support.

Furthermore, the belief that government action can improve societal well-being is misguided. Government intervention, through forcible taxation, violates the Pareto unanimity principle, which states that a social welfare improvement must make at least one individual better off without making anyone worse off. Forced redistribution of wealth, even in the name of charity, disrupts the voluntary exchange of goods and services, undermining the very foundation of societal welfare.

It's important to recognize the value of individual choice and autonomy when seeking to improve the well-being of society. By allowing individuals to express their preferences through voluntary exchange, we can foster a more efficient and prosperous economy that better reflects the needs and desires of its participants.

In conclusion, while the effective altruism movement is undoubtedly driven by noble intentions, its approach to societal welfare is ultimately unreasonable. By disregarding the importance of voluntary exchange and individual choice, it risks imposing its own values and priorities on others, rather than allowing people to express their true preferences. A more effective approach to societal welfare must recognize the centrality of individual choice and the power of voluntary exchange in promoting prosperity and well-being.