Do Altruists Make the World a Better Place?

Altruism is, of course, a virtue.

Yes, we have a moral duty to help our fellow man and strive to leave the world a better place. By definition, rich and successful people can have a much bigger influence on improving the state of the planet ... because they have more money and influence. But there are exceptions. One of the greatest altruists was Mother Theresa, who had nothing but, through her example of compassion and service, inspired millions of others to love thy neighbor and help the least among us.

But we are increasingly learning from charitable activities funded by millionaires and billionaires what the welfare state has taught us for 60 years: Good intentions don't always make for good results, and charity can sometimes be counterproductive. As the old, often forgotten saying goes: Rarely does it make sense to do for someone something they can do themselves. That kind of kindness too often fosters dependency, not self-reliance.

Which brings us to this new fad of millionaire giving called "effective altruism." This form of altruism is defined in The Economist magazine as the use of "evidence and careful reasoning to work out how to help others." Who could argue with that?

Leif Wenar, a Stanford University philosophy professor who studies philanthropy, summarizes why altruism so often doesn't work: "Moral ambition is great. Good judgment is more important."

The late, great humorist P.J. O'Rourke put it even better: "Everybody wants to save the earth; nobody wants to help Mom do the dishes." Too often, modern philanthropy is about making the donors feel good about themselves rather than actually improving things.

Sadly, over the past couple of decades, so many billions and even trillions of dollars of private philanthropy and government aid -- often distributed with the best of intentions -- haven't improved things. In some cases, it has even made the world poorer by retarding economic development.

The most obvious and heartbreaking example is the estimated $10 trillion-plus spent on climate change -- that's over four times the amount of money it took to win World War II. The United Nations recently admitted that these efforts have had NO impact at all on reducing global temperatures. Given the warming trend the planet is experiencing, billions of people would be much better off today if we had just spent one-tenth of that money to make sure everyone has air conditioning. Instead, environmentalists lecture us that we have to donate tens of trillions of dollars more.

One of the most tragic conventional wisdoms came in the last decades of the 20th century to combat "the population bomb" that was going to lead to the planet running out of food and energy. The do-gooders funded ghoulish and inhumane policies like forced abortions, involuntary sterilizations and even in some cases infanticide to stop or discourage women in China and African nations from having babies. (These were many of the same people who today chant "my body, my choice.")

How many people are not enjoying life on Earth today because of this misguided "altruism"?

Philanthropists were behind the banning of the pesticide DDT, which cost many tens of thousands of lives lost to malaria, which was spread by mosquitoes in poor countries.

What's frustrating about all of this is that there are SO many obvious things that would unquestionably make the world a better place. There are still in 2026 an estimated 1 billion people on Earth who don't have access to reliable electric power. The green energy movement has inhumanely prevented gas and coal power plants from getting built in poor countries. We know from years of evidence that here at home, school choice programs could give low-income and minority children in inner cities a much better education than low-performing inner-city public schools. Think of the long-term societal benefit of 2 million additional kids each year having access to the high-quality education that rich kids get.

Ironically, the greatest gift that one can give to society is pretty simple: Start a business, employ workers and make a profit by giving people what they want at a price they want to pay. Arguably the single person who has done the most to reduce poverty in America is Walmart founder Sam Walton. He gave people things they wanted at "everyday low prices" and thus raised millions of people's living standard. AND he became a multibillionaire at the same time. The fiend.

One of the most generous philanthropists in history, Bill Gates, now acknowledges that after spending several billion dollars on charitable causes, his greatest gift to the world was making $10 billion by selling computer software that improved the world, not giving his profits away.

The effective altruism movement asks rich people to pledge to give away at least 10% of their income to charity. But when you have groups like the so-called Patriotic Millionaires, for example, self-righteously arguing for higher tax rates on the rich that history proves would slow the economy and make everyone poorer, this kind of altruism isn't patriotic or effective. It's just plain stupid.

Stephen Moore is a former Trump senior economic adviser and the cofounder of Unleash Prosperity, which advocates for education freedom for all children.