The Rich Have Their Own Ethics: Effective Altruism & the Crypto Crash (ft. F1nn5ter)

Get Nebula cheaper with this link:
Watch “The Prince:”
Support the show! –

When crypto company FTX crashed, it posed big questions for the Effective Altruism movement!

Twitter: @PhilosophyTube

Instagram & TikTok & Tumblr: @theabigailthorn




0:00 Intro
2:23 What is Effective Altruism?
7:27 Who is Sam Bankman-Fried?
15:23 What is Longtermism?
30:34 How Do We Change the World?

#crypto #charity #philosophy

Recommended For You

About the Author: Robert Dodson


  1. I really hope you enjoy this one – I worked super hard on it and tried my very best to keep things even-handed and educational! If you appreciate that effort, is what helps me keep making work like this!

  2. Dunno why the YT algo recommended me this, but I like this video. It was very – haha – effective 🙂

  3. So, I watched the video, back when it was released, but because of the algorithm, my "watch next" keeps posting this thumbnail of a red hot rubber nun…

  4. I feel so childishly happy whenever she says “if you’re clever then you might already…” when it’s something I did in fact question. It’s like getting a pat on the head from someone you admire.

  5. The pleas to emotion given at 18:53 in favour of giving to the homeless person could equally be made in favour of giving to the charity: "some people are DYING of malaria, and you ignored them! Real human beings! What about generosity? kindness? don't those people deserve it too?"
    So I think don't those emotional pleas are a good way to choose one over the other.
    There are more valid arguments in favour of giving to the homeless person, but they do not contradict the effective altruism philosophy (though they may contradict the way it is practiced):
    – the homeless person will receive ALL of the £3, but when you give to a charity a lot of the money ends up paying for admin, logistics, etc. and only a portion actually ends up paying for the malaria nets. So the amount of good done might be less than face value.
    – if you give to the homeless person you know for sure they're getting the money, but if you give to the charity you can't see exactly what happens to the money, e.g. it could be lost to corruption along the way.
    – the homeless person's feelings may be hurt a bit if he/she sees that you're not giving to them, and this is less likely for the charity recipients because they can't see your decision (in terms of net good this is a minor point).

    There is also a selfish aspect to the emotional argument
    – by denying the homeless person you may make them upset or angry at you, and there's a chance they may cause you harm (either physically or reputationally).
    – if other people see you denying the homeless person it may tarnish your image

    However, a stronger argument could be made for giving to both the homeless person and the charity, since the extra £3 spent would probably otherwise be spent on something for yourself that does less good, and you would save a lot of wasted time spent in philosophical rumination.
    The problem with many of these philosophical arguments/examples is that they often don't (or can't) think carefully about the weights and probabilities of all the factors involved. For the wallet example given at 26:29, the probability that the wallet inspector is telling the truth decreases as his promises increase in value, so the expected payoff doesn't change (or decreases). If you tell me a promised payoff/penalty amount, then I can give you a probability that makes the expected payoff 0.

  6. Effective Altruism:
    Where the ruling class still refuses to share power and resources but still feels guilty enough to give the working class their breadcrumbs.

  7. Oh yes, the banks giving the illusion of caring little titbits thrown to the masses. Bankers And a better world do not go hand-in-hand. Do you really believe a psychopath or sociopath is going to care. The love of money, plain and simple and screw the rest of them.

  8. “…A man who gives in charity and hides it, such that his left hand does not know what his right hand gives in charity; and a man who remembered Allah in private and so his eyes shed tears.” (Abu Hurairah & collected in Saheeh al-Bukhari (English trans.) vol.1, p.356, no.629 & Saheeh Muslim (English trans.) vol.2, p.493, no.2248)

  9. wonderful video!
    also, I recommend you check out the Jewish point of view (the 2500 years old view from the "Gmara").

  10. A bunch of stupid do-gooders who have too much money and not enough brains to realize that most of these things they give their money to are scams.

  11. Give a man a fish & he has a meal. Teach a man to fish & he begins a mu;ti-generational campaign to justify the appropriation of fish from someone else's waters.

  12. So, was Jeff Epstein a member of EA? Perks of the group, a trip to the island……. Seem like it fits.
    Charities like Bill Gates birth control efforts in India?

  13. Helping a lot of people but not solving any of that country's issues isn't effective. Solving issues is effective. This isn't effective altruism, it's just propaganda. Effective altruism is real but it never showed up in your video. All you did was support your sponsors like those that get that money to write good things about big companies to distract people from the amount of shits they give about everyone else. You were either played or you're a parasite. This video is a joke regardless of your original intent.

  14. Great to hear about your success. Good talk. I subscribed. I think I might have had Nebula once, a year subscription. I never looked at it. The only thing I have to say is that your red outfit could have looked attractive if there weren't all of those ornaments and diapers attached.

  15. Subscribed…not sure if I'll stay…I was just about to quit…when you went well timed.
    Also liked your subtle "…my what?" Joke.

  16. Charity only helps a small amount of people by the whims of the rich. Taxing the hell out of the rich, placing more restrictions on businesses and corporations, and making basic social needs accessible for everyone is the only solution. We have a long way to go in the U.S. but with more and more recessions and inflation, , and bailouts maybe we can get angry enough to collectivize. The only card the right has to play here is complaining about trans people and gay parades if the left can make our infrastructure and social needs the face of the left instead of doubling down and taking the bait the left already wins out. I feel sorry for the European countries moving further right and taking inspiration from the U.S.

  17. …. I'm not rich, don't fit your age group, …. well don't fit almost everything you have described but i've ended up acting out of LOGIC rather than out of heart. Simply cause I've limited (very limited) financial situation so every dollar matters. IF you want to help (large) areas how can you help with limited finances ? BY operating logically with the charitable (donation/investment) with that limited amount. Its easily described as budgeting charity. I'm assuming almost EVERYONE has to do this to a degree unless they are just blindly donating and not checking to see how much of their dollar is actually getting to the people in the charity. Anyway… yea
    There is a degree of planning to get the best effect… But even so there is a point in time when the effort for finding the MOST optimal most effective use becomes Less with each hour and each day because they have done nothing to help. And while looking to prevent future disaster is good there must be enough proof that THIS is the cause of this disaster. And yes AI could be helpful, but it could be harmful. It is super important to do something to prevent the abuse of AI and prevent AI from abusing people.
    Ultimately from what has been seen over time and research…. the few elite who have lots of influence are largely in the globalist groups who are likely involved in eugenics, and depopulation. They are pushing toward a one world order controlled by a small technocratic elite business men who make all laws for everyone, every country, and over throw the world we have to day. So says the world economic forum strategic intelligence interactive MAP. doubt it that's fine… just remember this.. They normally do a simulation or practice run before they execute a program. Such as Rockefeller 2010 lockstep simulation and event 201… imagine that… is there any other simulations before the event… well wouldn't you like to know. Research is the best thing to prove it to yourself. But hey if that isn't enough then consider the wef where they said people will own nothing, and be happy …. would you ? do you think people really want to follow the communist manifesto? Most people I know don't support this stuff but are being pushed into it. Also look into the georga guide stones for a direction super wealthy seem to be pushing in. it's just something to consider….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *