Thoughts on the FTX situation
by Vesa Hautala.
Note: this post does not present a stance by Effective Altruism for Christians. This blog publishes posts by multiple authors. The views contained in the posts may sometimes be contradictory and do not necessarily reflect the views of Effective Altruism for Christians.
The Effective Altruism community has been shocked by news about the bankruptcy of cryptocurrency exchange company FTX. Sam Bankman-Fried, the company’s former CEO, had built a $23 billion fortune and dedicated billions worth of funding to EA. He set up the FTX Future Fund that distributed grants to longtermist causes. Now FTX is being accused of engaging in fraudulent practices. The company collapsed last week and Bankman-Fried's net worth plummeted. Along with FTX and Bankman-Fried’s wealth, billions of funding committed to EA causes is gone. The board of FTX Future Fund, which included William MacAskill among others, resigned on November 10th. Exact details will be known later (if ever), but the allegation is that FTX used customer deposits in a questionable way against its own terms of service.
For many EAs this is a crisis of trust. Sam Bankman-Fried was involved with EA from early on and for a while he worked for CEA before starting his crypto companies and was a self-described utilitarian. He publicly stated he wanted to donate his fortune to impactful causes and often appeared in photos wearing a t-shirt with the EA logo. He had a reputation as the “most generous billionaire”.
From a Christian perspective, the allegations against Sam Bankman-Fried and FTX serve as a reminder about the importance of humility. If the alleged wrongdoing happened, it would not be surprising in the big picture, since humans are sinful. No moral philosophy or commitment to philanthropy nullifies this fact. Saying you are acting based on EA motivations (or actually acting based on EA motivations) does not make you immune to sin. This fundamental flawedness is an ever-present reminder to stay humble and vigilant – starting with yourself and your own organisation.
If prominent people engage in wrong actions, Christian EAs may find some comfort in remembering the Biblical exhortation, “Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save.” (Ps. 146:3 NIV) Humans may err and do wrong, but our commitment to doing good should rest on more secure foundations. The inspiration faith gives for loving our neighbour could help keep Christians motivated when we see social realities of philanthropy shaking. Our commitment to doing good should not depend on the EA movement. Ideals that need to be thrown away if prominent people fail to live up to them are not worth holding.
For some, the angst goes deeper. Does the EA mindset have harmful consequences? Could a maximizing EA mindset motivate fraud? I believe we need to be able and willing to seriously ask if EA has good consequences or not – this is mandated by the principles of EA. However, human beings are entirely capable of acting against their stated moral philosophy or invoking any system of morality as a cover for wrong behaviour. Bankman-Fried’s alleged fraud looks simply reckless rather than justified by expected value calculations.
Nevertheless, I do think there are concerns about ways hardcore utilitarian ethics could be used or abused to circumvent commonsense moral rules (even if high-ranking people and organisations in the EA movement have repeatedly spoken out against this). Regardless of whether people actually make such inferences, this will likely be the new stock criticism of EA from now on and has to be accounted for. The movement might be facing a very serious PR issue.
Perhaps this could be a time when Christian EA sharpens its identity as a form of EA anchored in a moral framework that rests upon Christianity rather than pure utilitarianism. EACH says "we are Christians first". People calling themselves Christian have certainly engaged in their fair share of fraud and other misdeeds throughout history. But one thing that is certain about the morality advocated by Christianity is that it is not unrestricted utilitarianism and places heavy emphasis on honesty, integrity, and honouring commitments. I think we need to be saying clearly that Christian EA does not have those features that could lead up to the kind of caricatured effective altruism that would be willing to engage in “ends-justify-the-means” reasoning. I have personally thought for some years now that EA is best thought of as a tool, not a total social and worldview package. It seems like a natural way for Christians to engage with EA.
I think it is particularly important in this situation that the EA movement has Christians and other diverse strands in it. Diversity gives EA resilience against possible overreaches by particular parts of the movement. It could also protect the image of the movement to a degree if it is not seen as a monolith – this is uncertain though, since public perceptions are very prone to oversimplification. But at least when communicating about EA to Christians this could be the case.