by Maria Camila Gutierrez

What does it truly mean to do good? Jason Brennan, Robert J. and Elizabeth Flanagan Family Professor, explores the ethical complexities of doing good in Questioning Beneficence: Four Philosophers on Effective Altruism and Doing Good. Alongside three other philosophers, Brennan and co-authors challenge conventional wisdom, offering fresh perspectives on how we measure moral obligations, the impact of charitable giving, and the broader role in helping others.

Unlike traditional debate books, Questioning Beneficence allows readers to witness intellectual evolution as the authors engage with each other’s arguments. The book navigates key tensions in modern philanthropy, such as the trade-offs between intent and impact, the unintended consequences of charitable movements, and the ways in which everyday business and civic life contribute to societal well-being.

Here, Brennan shares insights into the origins of the book, the challenges of co-writing, and the key lessons he hopes readers take away.

1. How did the idea for Questioning Beneficence originate? What inspired you and your co-authors to explore the ethical complexities of this concept?

Effective altruism is about applying scientific rigor to our charitable endeavors. For an effective altruist, it’s not the thought that counts, but the results. Recently, a few high-level effective altruists made a bad name for the movement due to fraud or poor choices. Critics paint it as an extremist philosophy with absurd implications.

In light of all this, a few other scholars and I were brainstorming a way to debate effective altruism and beneficence more broadly. After consulting with an editor at Routledge, we came up with a new format: the roundtable.

This book does something brand new. Each of the four co-authors produces and writes long answers to three big questions. The other three authors then write shorter responses to those questions and the first author’s own answers. The first author then responds to the other three. So, we have twelve big questions and a genuine dialogue. You even see us change our minds on certain issues along the way.

We defend four diverse positions. Richard Yetter-Chappell (University of Miami) is the most willing to reject and revise common sense morality in favor of the view that we should all be do far more charitable giving. I’m trying to improve common sense ethics without throwing it all out. Sam Arnold (Texas Christian University) is worried about how effective altruist movements might have bad side effects on politics — in other words, he worries effective altruism isn’t effective. Ryan Davis (Brigham Young University) thinks that helping others is good but not obligatory. (Note that Davis spends lots of time volunteering, so don’t think this means he’s selfish.)

2. What challenges did you encounter while writing the book, and how did they shape the final product?

Coordinating with three co-authors is difficult. Fortunately, everyone was professional and conscientious. 

We also knew we needed to address two audiences in one book. We had to write something rigorous for professional philosophers, but something engaging for lay readers. Most academics can do neither, let alone both at once. Again, my co-authors rose to the occasion.

Finally, when we thought the other authors made compelling counterarguments, we had to decide what to do. Do we dig in our heels? Or do we admit they might be right? We went with the latter. So the book shows intellectual development as we learn from each other. 

3. What do you think is the most significant misconception people have about beneficence as a moral principle?

Many people interpret beneficence as sacrifice. They ask, how much am I supposed to give? What percent of my income should I donate? How much time should I volunteer?

This is the wrong starting point. The goal of beneficence is to help others, not to hurt yourself. Focusing on sacrifice causes people to be bad at beneficence in two major ways.

First, people think if they donate enough – whatever “enough” is – they’ve thereby done their duty of beneficence. Not so. Many charitable organizations and nongovernmental organizations do little good; they consume as many resources as they produce. They are a net zero. Many are worse than zeros; they cause more harm than good. In the book, we discuss examples of charities (such as Scared Straight) so bad that for every $1 you donate, you can expect to cause $100 of social harm.

For example, let’s say Allen gives 50% of his income to Scared Straight. His intentions may be good. He has sacrificed a great deal, but he hasn’t thereby helped. In contrast, let’s say Bob gives a mere $50 to Sightseers, enough to cure one person of trachoma-based blindness. Bob has sacrificed little, but he has already done far more good and thus acted more beneficently than Allen.

Second, the focus on charitable giving is shortsighted. Beneficence is about helping others. Charity is just one mechanism to help others. For some problems, the best way to help others is indeed through charitable donations. For others, it’s through business activity, including old-fashioned for-profit business. For others, it’s about civil society or modifying government institutions. The world doesn’t play fair, and we often don’t know what mix is best.

4. Were there specific examples or case studies that particularly surprised or influenced your conclusions in the book?

I wanted to think more about business and ordinary people leading ordinary lives. We tend not to give ordinary people credit for what they do. The typical auto mechanic is already doing a lot of good for people by fixing cars. We are wrong to ignore that. 

In business schools, talking about social business is all the rage. A social business might aim to help others through business activity, but it’s an open question whether they, in fact, do more good than regular businesses. Unfortunately, many movements about socially-conscious capitalism just turn into opportunities for grift and social signaling, only to be replaced by the next buzzword. So, much of my section of the book concerns trying to get people to stop evaluating intentions and instead evaluate results. 

5. What key lessons do you hope readers will take away, especially those working in business, policy-making, or other fields where beneficence is central?

The questions we ask and answer in this book bear on whether normal people should feel guilt or pride over how we live our lives, and whether we should feel resentment or gratitude toward how others live theirs. They bear on how we plan our careers. They bear on whether we applaud sacrifice for its own sake or recognize that sacrifice must have a point beyond itself. They bear on whether we have the right or wrong heroes. I think after reading it, you’ll see that yes, you can and should do better in certain things (most of us really are bad at choosing charities), but you’ll also realize you’re giving yourself and others too little credit for the good they do in their daily lives.