Notes Toward an Article on the Arts and Effective Altruism That I Didn't Post

· 2 min read

Here are the basics for the article I tried to write yesterday, but couldn’t get off the ground:

Inspiration for the post: _Philanthropy by the Numbers: Measurable Impact and Its Civic Discontents_ by Aaron Horvath in the Hedgehog Review: Critical Reflections on Contemporary Culture

Additional Source: The Most Good You Can Do by Peter Singer

Thesis: The basic concepts of Effective Altruism are bad for the arts.

Definition of Effective Altruism:

  • Utilitarian (the greatest good for the greatest number)
    • Cost-benefit analysis determines philanthropic contributions: the most bang for your charity buck
    • The “good” in Singer’s book title is “the number of lives saved or, in terms of the movement’s preferred metric, increases in quality-adjusted life years, or “QALYs”.
    • Goal restated: the most good you can do per dollar.
  • Cost-benefit: make contributions in poor economies where an American dollar is worth more
    • effective altruism leader: “if you want to do the most good…the worst place you can start is your neighborhood, your friends, your country.”
  • Definition of success is data driven: outcomes should be quantifiable, usually defined in terms of number of lives saved

Why Bad for the Arts:

  • Arts are
    • American (so a dollar = a dollar; li.e., ess bang for a buck)
    • Local (ditto, only worse)
  • Arts don’t save lives, they enhance them; i.e., focus is not on quantity of life, but quality of life
  • Focus on quantification entices arts organizations to focus on quantifiable outcomes (number of underserved children served, increase in audience or company diversity, number of plays by marginalized playwrights, etc)
  • If board members bring this orientation to their service, the mission of the organization is distorted

Underlying premises:

  • The arts are primarily about art, not politics
  • Increases in quality of life is immeasurable, but important despite that