The need for a “Bang for the Buck” mentality in championing causes

There is a need for utilitarian thinking for those with a campaigning passion, especially when the issue and topic is niche. I am going to focus on the “bang for the buck” mentality in relation to campaigning for animal welfare. That is, merely, because this is where my passion lies; and the issue I am most aware of in terms of its diverse range of campaigns and objectives.

 

The issue of animal welfare is a bit of a case study for various issues. In this case, animal welfare is the concern that is fuelling the campaigner’s passion and motivating zeal. However, one of the problems faced by those with campaigning zeal for a passionate concern is a fragmentation of goals; policy initiatives and objectives; there are a multitude of things they want to see get done. Improving animal welfare is an overarching passion, but there is not one thing to do, and there are many “things to be done”, a multitude of policies and objectives. Thus, campaigners working for a cause need to work out – strategically – where to focus their energy, which campaigns and policies to prioritise.

 

“Effective political campaigning” (a term I am coining here) is about getting “bang for the buck”. It involves thing strategically – probably in utilitarian terms – about achieving an outcome in the area that will have the greatest impact. I am taking my cue here from the “effective altruism” movement. The “effective altruism” movement, driven by utilitarian philosophers and thinkers like Peter Singer, has involved a re-think about the charity sector and charitable giving. A similar kind of re-think, to the one that has gone on in terms of thinking about charitable giving, is needed for political campaigning.

 

Effective altruism is about choosing which charities to give to. Effective political campaigning is about choosing which policies/campaigns to champion. This is a lot easier to explain with specifics.

 

If the aim is to improve the welfare of animals, “effective altruism” uses a cost-benefit analysis to see which charity will make the most improvement in welfare for the most animals at the least cost. “Effective altruism” has primarily focused on improving the lives of people, rather than animals, but can be equally applied to animal charities. At its most simplistic, “effective altruism” means not giving to a charity based on a sentimental attachment to a charity, but based a rational analysis of the outcomes of the charity. The consequence of such reasoning usually suggests giving to charities working in the developing world, often with simple and cheap medical interventions. For example, you may be able to vaccinate a child in Africa from malaria for $2, or you could give a hip operation to one elderly person in the U.S. for $1,000. “Effective altruism” reasons that you should give $1,000 to the charity to vaccinate 500 children in Africa, rather than give the one elderly person in the U.S. the hip operation.

 

This is an overly simplified account of “effective altruism”, but my aim is not to discuss the details of the “effective altruism” movement, but to consider how its thinking could be applied to enable “effective political campaigning”.

 

 In the same way that “effective altruism” seeks to answer, which charity should I give to?, “effective political campaigning” seeks to answer, which campaign should I invest my time/energy in?

 

In a follow-up article, I will try to address the question which I – personally – want to answer, which is: if my passion is to improve animal welfare, using the logic of “effective political campaigning”, which campaign should I invest my time/energy in?