253 How to Do Good Better with Will MacAskill

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: Lewis Howes interviews Oxford philosopher Will MacAskill about effective altruism, the idea that giving should be optimized for maximum impact using evidence and reasoning. MacAskill explains his personal path into giving, the five core questions of effective altruism, why global health and poverty interventions often outperform others, and how people can donate, volunteer, and choose careers more effectively to do the most good.

Main Topics: Origins of Effective Altruism (Priority: 5/5): MacAskill describes how working in fundraising and confronting global poverty led him to realize he was not living up to his own values, prompting his commitment to give away most of his income and research which charities are truly effective. Defining Effective Altruism (Priority: 5/5): Effective altruism is framed as using time, money, and career decisions with high-quality evidence, careful reasoning, and measurable outcomes to maximize positive impact. Five Core Questions for Doing Good (Priority: 5/5): MacAskill outlines a framework: how many people benefit and by how much; whether the action is the most effective option; whether the cause is neglected; what would happen otherwise; and what the probability-weighted upside is for uncertain efforts. Evidence-Based Global Health Giving (Priority: 5/5): The conversation emphasizes that bed nets, deworming, and direct cash transfers are among the strongest giving options because they are highly cost-effective, well-studied, and target the world’s poorest people. The Role of Career and Time (Priority: 4/5): MacAskill argues that donations are only one lever; career choice and using 80,000 working hours strategically can produce much larger long-term impact than casual volunteering alone. Public Giving, Social Proof, and Motivation (Priority: 3/5): They discuss whether donations should be anonymous or public, with MacAskill favoring public commitments when they inspire others and create a norm of generosity, while still warning against status-seeking motives. Local vs Global Responsibility (Priority: 4/5): MacAskill addresses objections about helping local communities first, arguing that neglected global problems can often produce more marginal impact because far fewer resources are already allocated to them.

Key Arguments: Global inequality is so extreme that even a typical high-income earner in wealthy countries can have outsized impact by redirecting resources to the poorest people. Measuring charity by overhead alone is misleading; what matters is outcomes and total impact, not how low costs appear on paper. Many social programs do little or no good when rigorously tested, so evidence and cost-effectiveness should guide donations. Neglected causes often create more leverage because additional dollars face diminishing returns in overfunded areas. Career decisions should be treated as moral decisions because one person’s long-term professional output can exceed the impact of many donations. Volunteering can help, but direct donations and career choice often produce more scalable impact than spare-hour service. Public commitments to give can motivate others and amplify impact by turning one person’s action into social proof for many. Giving can increase happiness and meaning, so altruism is often less of a sacrifice than people assume.

Data Points: Global richest threshold: Above about $55,000 after tax puts someone in the richest 1% of the world - Used to illustrate how wealthy even average earners in rich countries are globally Global richest threshold: Above about $12,000 after tax puts someone in the richest 15% of the world - Shows the relative privilege of incomes common in developed countries Extreme poverty line: Poorest billion people live on less than $1.50 per day - Demonstrates the scale of global poverty and the leverage of aid Bed net cost: About $5 per bed net - Used as an example of a highly cost-effective malaria intervention Life saved estimate: About $3,500 donated statistically saves one life - Approximate cost-effectiveness estimate for malaria bed nets Deworming cost: About 50 cents per child - Cost to cure children of parasitic worms through mass deworming programs Giving What We Can pledge: At least 10% of income - Core public commitment promoted by the organization Personal giving threshold: Above 20,000 pounds per year (about $35,000, inflation-adjusted about $40,000) - MacAskill’s commitment to donate everything above this income level Membership scale: About 1,300 members - Giving What We Can membership mentioned in the discussion Lifetime pledged donations: Close to half a billion dollars - Total lifetime pledge amount from members Average American giving: About 2% - Compared against the 10% norm MacAskill would like to see Working life: 80,000 hours - Used to stress the importance of career choice and long-term impact Career-search investment: 5% of working life equals about two working years - Suggested amount of time to spend figuring out how to use the rest of one’s career well U.S. welfare spending: About $2 trillion per year - Cited to show how heavily domestic poverty is already funded Overseas development spending: About $250 billion per year - Compared with U.S. domestic welfare to argue global poverty is more neglected Volunteer donor behavior: Less than 10% of people report doing any research before donating - Used to argue most giving is unreflective

Pivotal Quotes: "Effective altruism is about using your time and money as effectively as possible to make the world a better place and taking the scientific approach." — Will McCaskill: Definition of the movement and its method "You have the power to save a person's life, every single year of your life." — Will McCaskill: His final three truths about the leverage of strategic giving "I'd define greatness as the difference you make to the world." — Will McCaskill: Closing answer to Lewis Howes’ final question

Implications: Listeners are encouraged to treat giving, volunteering, and career choice as evidence-based impact decisions. The episode pushes a shift from emotional, symbolic charity toward measurable, high-leverage action that can improve far more lives.