The Anarchist Banker and the Acceptability of Effective Altruism

In his book The Anarchist Banker, the Portuguese poet and novelist Fernando Pessoa tells the story of an anarchist who also happens to be a banker. His old comrades are shocked by this apparent contradiction of normative beliefs and actions. But the anarchist justifies his unexpected choice of occupation by pointing out that anarchists can achieve none of their ideals if they don’t have the means to do so. Becoming a banker is, in fact, the best way to contribute to the anarchist cause! Or so, at least, is the banker’s argument.

At first, one may suspect that Pessoa’s anarchist banker is not honest. We could rightly infer from his choice of occupation that he has relinquished the ideals of his youth and that his anarchist talk is just that: mere talk. But another interpretation is possible: what if the anarchist banker is in fact honest? And what if his way of life is, in fact, the best way to contribute to anarchism, because the money he generates through his banking activities allows him to support the anarchist cause more effectively than most other anarchists? Isn’t he simply a sort of effective altruist? For, like effective altruists, he has considered the evidence and applied reason to work out the most effective ways to improve the world (i.e. by becoming a banker), though he may never have heard about act-utilitarianism.

At the other end of the anarchist spectrum, imagine a frugal anarchist. The frugal anarchist makes the opposite life choice. She believes that the banker’s choice, whether or not it is an honest choice, implies participating in an unjust system, hence prolonging both the existence of the system and the need to alleviate its unjust effects. The anarchist banker must be blind, she thinks, for he is committed to a contradiction. His banker’s side is nourishing the system that his anarchist side wants to see disappear! The frugal anarchist believes that she can avoid such a blatant contradiction and be truthful to the anarchist’s attachment to the unity of means and ends. She can dedicate her life to anarchism without dirtying her hands by participating in an unjust system (beyond what is strictly necessary to avoid living a miserable life).

It is unclear to us that the choice of frugality is indisputably the right choice to make for an anarchist (and mutatis mutandis for anyone supporting an altruistic cause): the frugal anarchist, who rejects participation in an unjust system, is fighting a system that she cannot beat because she lacks the means to do so. While the frugal option seems more “pure” and more consistent with the anarchist tradition than the banker’s option, it is unclear that it is the most justifiable from a long-term perspective, since it is clearly not the most effective.

Hence, it seems that the banker’s option is not the least attractive, after all. For, contrary to his frugal comrade’s gesticulations, the banker’s actions can have some effects: he can relieve some injustice or harm. However, we also believe that this is not the end of the story. For Pessoa’s banker also contributes to injustice. How can this be justified?  On what conditions could the banker’s option be justifiable, not so much to anarchists in particular, but in more general moral terms? We have identified 5 conditions, and while we lack space to fully develop them here, we would like to have your opinions on these conditions.

We believe the anarchist banker, or any effective altruist, should:

1. Use the surplus income generated by this choice of occupation exclusively for altruistic purposes;

Quite obviously, this strategy is acceptable only if it meets its own goals. If the goal is to redistribute as much as possible or to support anarchism as best as possible, the surplus income should be used for that.

2. Have reasons to believe that their convictions will withstand a hostile environment;

As others have noticed, effective altruists face a motivational challenge: by earning a lot of money and being immersed in an environment where altruism may not be the dominant social norm, to say the least, they may end up giving up their prior altruistic commitment, thereby failing by their own initial norms. Thus, this strategy might be acceptable only for people with a strong moral strength.

3. Protect themselves effectively against the temptation to stray and change their mind.

Since moral strength is fragile, the strategy would become more acceptable if people protected themselves against the temptation to keep money for themselves or to change their minds. This can be done by taking public pledges, as recommended by effective altruists, but also by setting up a transparent system of redistribution, controlled by an independent agency, for example.

4. Choose the job with the best moral harm/benefit ratio among available jobs.

It’s not the case that taking any high-earning job will be justified as long as one redistributes the surplus income. Since different jobs are unequally beneficial or harmful (considering here only the professional activity) to society at large, the best choice is to take a job that generates a lot of money while being minimally harmful.

5. Campaign and vote for the elimination or minimization of the harms produced by their taking a harmful job or unjust social position.

This aspect may matter less to pure consequentialists, but it will matter highly to anarchists and others who have a more relational understanding of morality: to avoid wrongful complicity in harm or injustice, they cannot limit themselves to redistribute the money. They should also work to undermine the harm or injustice that their job produces, through political action, typically.

Louis Larue (Aalborg University) & Pierre-Etienne Vandamme (UCLouvain)