Christians should think about the ‘good’ in ‘doing the most good’

By Samuel Dupret.

In effective altruism (EA), we are concerned with ‘doing the most good’. I argue that (1) there will be situations where Christians are also concerned about ‘doing the most good’, (2) it is important to think about how one defines and measures the ‘good’ in ‘doing the most good’, and (3) Christians - especially Christians in EA - have an important and unique contribution to make in defining ‘good’. 

This is a shallow, initial exploration of this topic. My views are influenced by my work at the Happier Lives Institute.

1. There will be situations where Christians are concerned about ‘doing the most good’

Christians might have different levels of sympathy for the idea of ‘doing the most good’; namely, the idea that the morally relevant feature of a decision is how much of an outcome occurs (i.e., maximising ‘good’). I argue that, even if you do not feel like this is the only morally relevant feature, you will likely encounter situations where it is a strong (and perhaps the only) feature. 

There are situations where all your other moral concerns as a Christian will be satisfied and then you are left with concerns of maximising 'good'. Let’s take the example of giving to charity. Say you have performed your duties to relevant actors (e.g., your family, your community, and your local church) and you have some money left to give. Out of the possible charities you could give to, you've removed any that go explicitly against Christian doctrine and virtue. For the sake of example, let’s imagine there are only two charities left, X and Y. Charity X will produce 20 units of ‘good’ with your money, whilst charity Y will produce 2 units of ‘good’ with your money. All things equal, you should clearly ‘do the most good’ by giving to charity X. To push this example further, say that - instead of abstract units - charity X saves 20 lives and charity Y saves 2 lives, shouldn’t you save more lives?

Personally, I seek to approach these situations in the following way: Have I accomplished my Christian duties (e.g., not having idols before God)? If so, how can I grow in virtue so that I am most like Christ? That being satisfied, how can I maximise ‘good’? I think there are many situations other than giving to charity for which this will apply. 

2. It is important to think about how one defines and measures the ‘good’ in ‘doing the most good’

It is important to think about how one defines and measures the ‘good’ in ‘doing the most good’ because we have limited resources. You have limited money to give to charity, limited time and energy in your day, and limited resources in your occupation. Situations with limited resources (all other Christian concerns satisfied) are where Christians are likely to have concerns about maximising ‘good’. However, if we don’t think about what is the ‘good’ we want to maximise, we can’t distribute our resources such that it will maximise ‘good’. 

If we don’t think carefully about how we define ‘good’, we might be led astray in allocating resources to things that are not the ‘good’ itself we want to achieve. This is what can happen with countries being concerned about GDP. Yes, income can do ‘good’ for people, but it is instrumental to ‘good’, not ‘good’ itself. 

How does the secular world define ‘good’? One typical answer from philosophy is that which is ultimately good for people, in other words, wellbeing (Crisp, 2001;  Moorhouse et al., 2020). Let’s pick ‘wellbeing’ as our ‘good’. We now have sub-issues of defining wellbeing and measuring wellbeing to tackle. 

There are different theories of wellbeing and this could lead to different priorities: hedonia (balance of pleasure and pain, or happiness), desire theories (satisfaction of one’s desires), and objective list theories (a list of items that constitute wellbeing outside of people’s desires and feelings about said items). Each have their own limitations.

Say that definitions don’t make a difference (or that everyone agrees on the same one), we are still left with questions as to how to measure good. You can’t choose X or Y action because it will do more ‘good’ without having measured the units of ‘good’ that each will produce. Multiple EA actors in the global health and development sphere (who all care about what is ultimately good for people) have expressed the different ways in which they measure ‘good’. 

3. Christians have an important unique contribution to make in defining ‘good’

Our views of ‘good’ as Christians are likely to be different from the majority of EA. First, because our goal isn’t wellbeing in a narrow sense, or EA, but doing the will of God. Second, God is our ultimate and supreme definer of ‘good’, which we seek to refer to. This is important because it will permeate every topic we discuss in EA (not just charitable donations, but also our views about animals, existential risk, etc.). 

So what do we do? We set out our definitions, models, and measurements of good. We give our weights to different factors and we test those against the scriptures and Christian doctrine. Whilst we progress in this direction, we take the next best thing for our current decision. For me, this is the subjective wellbeing approach (likely with some tweaks).

Is wellbeing the ultimate good we care about as Christians? It seems that God does care about human wellbeing (“Eat, drink and be glad”; the flourishing of human life that was to be in the Garden and is to be in the New Creation; Jesus healing people; the values of the Kingdom where we are to care for each other). However, we value more than a typical definition of wellbeing. Jesus said we were to carry our cross and that we will share in his suffering. People become Christians in areas where they are persecuted. Whilst this might crush their human experience of wellbeing, we are likely to still think it is better for them to be Christians than not. This is because we value a renewed relationship with our creator God. Although note that this becomes more complicated if we consider living out our relationship with God and eternal life as the ultimate wellbeing - where carrying our cross and suffering are but short-term steps towards ultimate wellbeing. 

In addition to that, God might give moral value to how we distribute good (e.g., justly, in an equalitarian and redemptive manner) and to elements beyond our wellbeing itself (e.g., life, creation).

There are some difficult topics that come with this program. Notably, how do we compare between different types of interventions? How do we compare between saving lives, improving lives, creating lives, and saving souls? Is it better to save X lives or raise Y people out of misery? This is further complicated by the fact that most interventions do more than one thing (e.g., reducing famine in a part of the world can save lives, improve lives, and be a witness for the Gospel). ‘Saving souls’ comes with a host of considerations (does it break the calculations, can you measure salvation, etc.).

To conclude, I think Christians should set out what they think is the ‘good’ in ‘doing the most good’. This is a difficult endeavour but it is worth it. We are going to encounter situations where thinking about ‘doing the most good’ will help us love our neighbours.