The whole effective altruism movement, i think, really has a very particular, a intellectual origin. It is in this other, a, this other thought experiment, which is peter singer's shallow pond. I think that it's very obvious that if you can donate a hundred dollars and maybe easily saved somebody, then maybe you should. But when we sort of change the scale of the thought experiment or complexify it, we immediately run into things that don't look good at all. That was actually an original critique of utilitarianism proposed by another philosopher who as very famous, der parfet.
Neuroscientist Erik Hoel talks about why he is not an "effective altruist" with EconTalk host, Russ Roberts. Hoel argues that the utilitarianism that underlies effective altruism--a movement co-founded by Will MacAskill and Peter Singer--is a poison that inevitably leads to repugnant conclusions and thereby weakens the case for the strongest claims made by effective altruists.