The article mentions its philosophical underpinnings: utilitarianism. There’s a wealth of philosophical discussion of its own merits and problems. Reading the article but having been unfamiliar with the “effective altruism” term, I immediately recognized utilitarianism in it and the rest was predictable. It seemed a perfectly good idea to me too for some time, and still does with a slew of caveats.

Giving it a simple name is fine, but it has one. Giving it a manipulative name is, well, one of the potential philosophical problems with utilitarianism.

What name is manipulative?

I assume the GP is talking about the name "effective altruism".

I don't know what else they should have picked? It seems like a fairly straightforward name for movement that focuses on charity effectiveness. I guess you could call it "effective giving" or something like that but caring about effectiveness is it core differentiating tenant and anything related to altruism/giving/charity is going to sound good.

I think the argument is that everyone else doing charity/altruism also (ostensibly) cares about effectiveness so it’s only a differentiating tenant if you somehow think your caring about effectiveness is somehow different to everyone else’s.

They care about effectiveness in the sense of if you asked if they cared about effectiveness they'd say yes.

They don't care about effectiveness in the sense that they are doing the math on how effective different outreach is, comparing that against other uses of the money, and sharing that with their donors.

I've been to 9-10 charity events and none of them talked about effectiveness in a dollar and cents way like the way givewell does. It's a real change from the status quo.

> Is there a term you would deem acceptable for seeking to give to others in a cost-effective manner?

Not the OP but State-imposed socialism might do the trick. Free housing, free decent education, free healthcare, what's there not to like?

The only thing is that you wouldn't be the one "doing" the giving as an individual, because that's not your job to do (again, as an individual).

Like someone else said and articles have said. Socialism is the most effective altruism. This doesn’t allow you to become worth $100M+ with the reasoning being you’ll be an effective altruist though. The upper EA people are suspect. As well as the thinking that making more money is better then a great society helping job. Not that most EA people are like this.