{"id":6919,"date":"2023-07-21T10:04:05","date_gmt":"2023-07-21T14:04:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/?p=6919"},"modified":"2023-11-14T21:28:08","modified_gmt":"2023-11-15T02:28:08","slug":"part-3-of-5-what-can-the-philanthropic-sector-take-from-the-downfall-of-samuel-bankman-fried-and-his-ties-to-effective-altruism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/2023\/part-3-of-5-what-can-the-philanthropic-sector-take-from-the-downfall-of-samuel-bankman-fried-and-his-ties-to-effective-altruism\/","title":{"rendered":"Part 3 of 5: What Can the Philanthropic Sector Take from the Downfall of Samuel Bankman-Fried and His Ties to Effective Altruism?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"By Calum Carmichael<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

(The full, five-part series is downloadable as a pdf: What Can the Philanthropic Sector Take from the Downfall of Samuel Bankman-Fried and His Ties to Effective Altruism, a five-part series by Calum Carmichael (2023)<\/a>.)<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Setting the stage for parts 3, 4 and 5 of this series
\n<\/strong><\/h2>\n

\"\"In September 2022, the prescient but pseudonymous Sven Rone<\/a> anticipated the fallout that Effective Altruism (EA) would experience before year\u2019s end:<\/p>\n

\u201cBy relying heavily on ultra-wealthy individuals like Sam Bankman-Fried for funding, \u2026 the Effective Altruism community does not appear to recognize that this creates potential conflicts with its stated mission of doing the most good by adhering to high standards of rationality and critical thought\u2026. [A]ttacks on the image of SBF, FTX and even crypto as a whole carry the risk of tarnishing EA\u2019s reputation. Were SBF to be involved in an ethical or legal scandal (whether in his personal or professional life), the EA ecosystem would inevitably be damaged as well.\u201d <\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In November 2022, following the bankruptcy of FTX International and the criminal charges against Samuel Bankman-Fried (SBF), The Economist<\/a> referred to that fallout:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe downfall of Mr Bankman-Fried, who has been apparently dedicated to the [EA] cause since his time at university, has led to a reckoning. Not only has effective altruism lost its wealthiest backer; its reputation has been tarnished by association. Many inside and outside the community are questioning its values, as well as the movement\u2019s failure to scrutinise its biggest funder\u2014something particularly painful for a group that prides itself on logically assessing risk.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In the same month, Kate Arnoff<\/a> described EA\u2019s reckoning as the one bright spot in the downfall of SBF:<\/p>\n

\u201cThis rethinking of effective altruism may be the one bright spot in an otherwise depressing crash \u2026. It\u2019s good that FTX\u2019s collapse is finally making people rethink Bankman-Fried and effective altruism.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Also in the same month, Erik Hoel<\/a> speculated on whether such rethinking would lead to the demise of EA:<\/p>\n

\u201cSam Bankman-Fried, affectionately known as SBF, was until recently effective altruism\u2019s <\/em>biggest funder<\/em><\/a>\u2026. If in a decade barely anyone uses the term \u2018effective altruism\u2019 anymore, it will be because of him\u2026.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Part 3: Questioning the philosophical foundations of Effective Altruism<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\"\"<\/a>

Part 1 of this series summarized criticisms of Effective Altruism.<\/p><\/div>\n

Late in 2022 the bankruptcy of FTX International and the criminal charges brought against the crypto entrepreneur SBF re-focused and intensified existing criticisms and suspicions of EA \u2013 the approach to philanthropy with which he was closely associated. Part 1<\/a> of this series summarized those criticisms under seven points: two each for the philosophical foundations and ultimate effects of EA, and three for its analytical methods. Part 2<\/a> described EA: its origins, ethos, analytical methods, priorities and evolution. Parts 4 and 5 of the series will focus on the criticisms and their rejoinders that apply to the analytical methods and ultimate effects of EA. Here in part 3, I focus on the two criticisms and their rejoinders that apply to its philosophical foundations. Before discussing each criticism, I provide several references to it that were made in reaction to the downfall of SBF.<\/p>\n

Throughout, my goal isn\u2019t simply to present contending views on the foundations, methods and effects for EA, but to derive from them implications and questions for the philanthropic sector as a whole \u2013 so that regardless of our different connections to the sector, we can each learn or take and possibly apply something from the downfall of SBF and his association with EA.<\/p>\n

Criticism #1: The ethical bases of EA rely on a narrow version of utilitarianism to the exclusion of other ethical theories or considerations, such that it encourages its adherents \u2013 through their philanthropy \u2013 to pursue purportedly good ends using potentially harmful or corrupting means. <\/strong><\/h3>\n

\u201cThe question is: was the FTX implosion a consequence of the moral philosophy of EA brought to its logical conclusion?\u201d <\/em>—Erik Hoel<\/a>, November 2022<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cThe problem for effective altruists is not just that one of their own behaved unethically. There is reason to believe that the ethos of effective altruism \u2026 enabled and even encouraged the disaster at every step along the way\u2026. [I]t is little more than a fancy way of saying \u2018the ends justify the means\u2019.\u201d<\/em> —David Z. Morris<\/a>, November 2022<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cOne key feature of utilitarianism is that it doesn\u2019t rule out any kinds of actions unilaterally. Lying, stealing and even murder could, in certain situations, yield the overall best consequences\u2026. That doesn\u2019t mean that an effective altruist has to say that stealing is okay if it leads to the best consequences. But it does mean that the effective altruist is engaged in the same style of argument.\u201d<\/em> —Jeff Dunn<\/a>, November 2022<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\u201cIf there\u2019s a lesson to be learned from the collapse of FTX, it\u2019s this: ethics is not the result of calculated consequences. If there\u2019s any good to emerge from the rubble, it\u2019s this: the demise of utilitarianism as a spiritual guide.\u201d <\/em>—Michael Cook<\/a>, November 2022<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"Holden

Holden Karnofsky, a thought leader in the EA community, voiced mild concerns that utilitarianism could weaken the trustworthiness of effective altruists.<\/p><\/div>\n

This first line of criticism against the philosophical foundations of EA focuses on their connections with utilitarianism<\/a> and its premise that actions are moral to the extent their consequences promote total well-being. Sure enough, utilitarianism informs EA, whether through the writings of thought leaders such as Peter Singer<\/a> or William MacAskill<\/a>, the outlooks of the majority of effective altruists as surveyed<\/a> in 2017, or the analytical methods used to identify the philanthropic causes or interventions capable of doing \u201cthe most good.\u201d And sure enough, SBF aligned himself with utilitarianism early on. At the age of 20 \u2013 perhaps influenced<\/a> by his parents<\/a>, both of whom are professors at Stanford Law School \u2013 he described<\/a> himself as \u201ca total, act, hedonistic\/one level (as opposed to high and low pleasure), classical (as opposed to negative) utilitarian; in short, I’m a Benthamite<\/a>.\u201d Both parentheses are original.<\/p>\n

According to some critics, the presence of utilitarianism has \u201cpoisoned<\/a>\u201d or \u201ccorrupted<\/a>\u201d EA, in part by inviting<\/a> \u201c\u2018ends justify the means\u2019 reasoning, \u2026 [and a] maniacal fetishization of \u2018expected value\u2019 calculations, which can then be used to justify virtually anything\u201d, ranging from business fraud<\/a> all the way to such things as bestiality and murder<\/a>. Even within the EA community there are some thought leaders \u2013 Holden Karnofsky<\/a> being one \u2013 who have voiced milder concerns that utilitarianism could weaken the trustworthiness of effective altruists: \u201cDoes utilitarianism recommend that we communicate honestly \u2026 [or] say whatever it takes \u2026 stick to promises we made \u2026 [or] go ahead and break them when this would free us up to pursue our current best-guess actions? \u2026. My view is that \u2013 for the most part \u2013 people who identify as EAs tend to have unusually high integrity. But my guess is that this is more despite<\/em> utilitarianism than because<\/em> of it.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"William

“The Reluctant Prophet of Effective Altruism,” a New Yorker article, shows how William MacAskill\u2019s movement set out to help the global poor, but how his followers now fret about runaway A.I. The article asks: have the followers seen our threats clearly, or lost their way?<\/p><\/div>\n

Among external critics of EA, the unease around utilitarianism often focuses on the \u201cearning to give<\/a>\u201d strategy \u2013 the idea promoted by 80,000 Hours<\/a> that for some effective altruists a career with social impact might involve their working not in positions tackling major problems directly, but rather in high-paying jobs that allow them to donate more to organizations tackling those problems effectively. As noted in parts 1<\/a> and 2<\/a>, it was this strategy that MacAskill proposed<\/a> to the undergraduate SBF, and of which SBF came to be the most prominent and praised exemplar<\/a>. Some argue, however, that \u201cearning to give adds a darker possibility of rationalizing unethical means in service of virtuous ends<\/a>.\u201d This could take several forms.<\/p>\n

First, the strategy could place well-intentioned people in work environments likely to erode those intentions. For example<\/a>: \u201cthe idea that getting rich is good (or even obligatory) so long as you\u2019re giving enough of it away, can become a justification for embracing a soul-corroding competitiveness while telling yourself you\u2019re just doing it for the greater good.\u201d Alternatively<\/a>, \u201cthe Spartan tastes and glittering ideals of dogooder college students rarely survive a long marinade in the values and pressures and possibilities of expansive wealth.\u201d<\/p>\n

Second, it could encourage people to accept careers that are high-paying but socially harmful, or to undertake business practices that are profitable but shady<\/a>: \u201c[i]t\u2019s easy to see how this could translate to: Go work in crypto, which is bad for the planet, because with all that crypto money you can do so much good.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"Samuel

‘The experience of SBF is a warning that if you are the type to try and make billions, you should worry that your ethics are vulnerable along the way,’ says internet writer Zvi Mowshowitz of SBF (pictured above).<\/p><\/div>\n

Finally, the strategy might attract duplicitous<\/a> or at least susceptible<\/a> characters from the get-go: \u201c[the experience of SBF] is also a warning that if you are the type to try and make billions, you should worry that your ethics are vulnerable along the way<\/em>.\u201d Italics are original. According to one commentator, the italicized warning could also have applied to types who try to receive billions<\/a>: \u201cIt is possible that MacAskill and his peers recognized that running a crypto exchange was inherently unethical, but concluded that it was nevertheless justifiable given the scale of the good that SBF\u2019s fortune would do.\u201d<\/p>\n

Rejoinders to criticism #1<\/strong><\/h3>\n

There are rejoinders to these criticisms of the role and effects of utilitarianism and the earning-to-give strategy. First, as an ethical theory, utilitarianism offers not a cut-and-dry, how-to manual for day-to-day use<\/a>, but rather a general framework for thinking about what makes actions moral. Like environmentalism or feminism<\/a>, it provides sufficient latitude for people holding different moral outlooks or priorities to partake.<\/p>\n

Second, EA isn\u2019t simply utilitarianism<\/a> \u2013 despite SBF labeling it \u201cpractical utilitarianism<\/a>.\u201d EA makes no claim that one must sacrifice one\u2019s own interests or those of another to serve the \u201cgreater good,\u201d nor does it specify or insist upon what the \u201cgreater good\u201d comprises. Sure enough, as noted in part 2<\/a> the EA organization Giving What We Can<\/a> encourages members to donate at least 10% of their income in perpetuity to the charities found to be most effective. But such a standard isn\u2019t unique to EA: it\u2019s present in Judaism and Christianity<\/a>. Moreover, in 1996 philosopher Peter Unger<\/a> developed arguments akin to those of Singer<\/a> from 1972 \u2013 ones that could have similarly inspired EA<\/a> \u2013 but unlike Singer, he did so disavowing any particular ethical theory, including utilitarianism.<\/p>\n

\"For

For more about ethical theories, read “What does Batman have to do with philanthropy? A series about ethics (or lack thereof) in our sector,” by Calum Carmichael: https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/ethics.<\/p><\/div>\n

Third, effective altruists aren\u2019t all utilitarian: although MacAskill is thought to be, his co-founder of Giving What We Can<\/a>, Toby Ord<\/a>, isn\u2019t; and although the majority surveyed<\/a> in 2017 said they were, a sizable minority said they weren\u2019t, affiliating instead with another ethical theory (e.g., deontology or virtue ethics<\/a>) or none.<\/p>\n

Fourth, the underlying principles of any ethical theory, if carried to the extreme, could be used to justify abhorrent behaviour. Sure enough, as some critics of EA argue, fanatical utilitarianism could be used to justify the murder of one to save the lives of two. But then again, fanatical deontology could be used to justify not telling a lie even to save the life of an innocent victim<\/a>. And fanatical virtue ethics could be used to justify sectarian indoctrination or bloodshed<\/a>. Thus, using extreme extrapolations to declare utilitarianism \u2013 or deontology, or virtue ethics \u2013 a \u201cflawed philosophy<\/a>\u201d that has \u201ccorrupted<\/a>\u201d EA isn\u2019t only a logical fallacy, but also \u2013 if carried to the extreme \u2013 a line of reasoning that would dismantle Western ethical thought.<\/p>\n

Fifth \u2013 turning to the dangers of recommending the \u201cearning-to-give\u201d strategy \u2013 such recommendations are infrequent, made perhaps to 15%<\/a> of effective altruists. For most, careers combining social impact with a better personal fit would come from working directly on important problems<\/a> \u2013 whether through nonprofits, charities, social enterprises, universities, think tanks, government or political organizations.<\/p>\n

Sixth, when recommended, earning-to-give comes with guidelines<\/a>: for example<\/a>, don\u2019t pursue a career that violates the rights of others or that entails fraud, such things being bad both in themselves and in their likely consequences<\/a>; don\u2019t enter or stay in a job<\/a> where \u201cthere is a large gap between your daily conduct and your core commitment\u201d; more generally<\/a>, \u201cavoid doing anything that seems seriously wrong from a commonsense perspective\u201d; and \u201cin the vast majority of cases\u201d don\u2019t pursue \u201ca career in which the direct effects of the work are seriously harmful, even if the overall benefits of that work seem greater than the harms.\u201d To be sure, by estimating<\/a> the donations that would compensate for the harmful aspects of a career or by inserting phrases like \u201ca large gap\u201d or \u201ca commonsense perspective\u201d or \u201cin the vast majority of cases,\u201d the guidelines could set up slippery slopes toward profitable but bad behaviour or lucrative but harmful careers. And admittedly such warnings may not have penetrated the thinking of SBF<\/a>, who claimed<\/a> \u201cI would never read a book. I\u2019m very skeptical of books.\u201d<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, the insertion of such \u201cfudge factors\u201d within the guidelines provides the agency that effective altruists would need to make their own moral decisions around actions that might be bad in themselves but good in their side effects: actions akin to spanking a child to discourage cruel behaviour, or telling a lie to protect an innocent life. Such trade-offs exist in all walks of life,<\/a> and credible, moral decisions regarding them aren\u2019t necessarily categorical.<\/p>\n

Criticism #2: EA excludes human emotion or relationship as guides to philanthropic choice, such that it undercuts philanthropists\u2019 agency and overlooks or opposes key aspects of human motivation.<\/strong><\/h3>\n

\u201cMany EA folks come from tech; many also consider themselves \u2018rationalists,\u2019 interested in applying Bayesian reasoning to every possible situation. EA has a culture, and that culture is nerdy, earnest, and moral. It is also, at least in my many dealings with EA folks, overly intellectual, performative, even onanistic.\u201d<\/em> —Annie Lowrey<\/a>, November 2022.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat the \u2018effective altruism\u2019 types believe in is that they can replace the inferior, subjective standards of the plebs with the superior, objective standards of the ruling class\u2026. Armed with these tools, \u2026 [they] feel empowered to do an unhinged collection of immoral things because, frankly, they <\/em>are saving the world<\/em><\/a>.\u201d<\/em> —Cauf Skiviers<\/a>, November 2022.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"Eliezer

Eliezer Yudkowsky, AI researcher, argues that charitable giving shouldn’t be about human feelings. “A human life, with all its joys and all its pains, adding up over the course of decades, is worth far more than your brain\u2019s feelings of comfort or discomfort with a plan.”<\/p><\/div>\n

This second line of criticism against the philosophical foundations of EA focuses on their undercutting donors\u2019 agency by discouraging them from choosing philanthropic causes freely in response to their own unfiltered emotions, interests or relationships. Instead, EA uses impartial and impersonal criteria to pre-select causes and interventions that are cost effective in saving or improving lives and then asks donors to choose from these. As explained by Peter Singer<\/a>: most charitable donations are \u201cgiven on the basis of emotional responses to images of the people, animals, or forests that the charity is helping. Effective altruism seeks to change that by providing incentives for charities to demonstrate their effectiveness.\u201d Or as put more bluntly by the effective altruist Eliezer Yudkowsky<\/a>: \u201cThis isn\u2019t about your feelings. A human life, with all its joys and all its pains, adding up over the course of decades, is worth far more than your brain\u2019s feelings of comfort or discomfort with a plan. Does computing the expected utility feel too cold-blooded for your taste? Well, that feeling isn\u2019t even a feather in the scales, when a life is at stake. Just shut up and multiply.\u201d Indeed, SBF endorsed such reasoning even in choosing among the cost-effective causes pre-selected by EA \u2013 eschewing those he considered \u201cmore emotionally driven<\/a>,\u201d such as global poverty and health that threaten millions of lives at present, preferring instead those he considered more intellectually driven, such as runaway artificial superintelligence<\/a> that could conceivably exterminate trillions in the distant future.<\/p>\n

EA\u2019s use of impartial and impersonal criteria to pre-select causes has been criticized for both what it overlooks in the world and denies in the individual. In terms of what it overlooks, the criteria used by EA focus<\/a> on concepts \u201cof individual needs and welfare, rather than power, inequality, injustice, exploitation, and oppression\u201d. By omitting the latter set of concepts, EA gives short shrift to conditions that are inherently important to our quality of life.<\/p>\n

\"Bernard

Philosopher Bernard Williams argued, in 1973, that the impartiality prescribed by utilitarianism is neither possible nor desirable.<\/p><\/div>\n

In terms of what it denies, EA\u2019s reliance on utilitarianism and impartiality requires individuals to forgo<\/a> \u201cthe things that constitute us as humans: our personal attachments, loyalties and identifications\u201d along with \u201cthe complex structure of commitments, affinities and understandings that comprise social life.\u201d Moreover, imposing a \u201cpoint-of-viewless\u201d impartiality<\/a> \u201cdeprives us of the resources we need to recognise what matters morally.\u201d The social world is \u201cirreducibly,\u201d \u201cirretrievably\u201d and \u201cineluctably\u201d normative such that acting morally does not require \u201cacting with an eye to others\u2019 well-being\u201d but rather acting with a \u201cjust sensitivity to the worldly circumstances in question.\u201d As a result, EA\u2019s \u201cimage of the moral enterprise is bankrupt and \u2026 [the] moral assessments grounded in this image lack authority.\u201d Such concerns echo those of the philosopher Bernard Williams who argued<\/a> in 1973 that the impartiality prescribed by utilitarianism is neither possible nor desirable: it\u2019s not possible given that individuals cannot step outside their own skin; and it\u2019s not desirable if, like Williams, one assumes that our individual well-being depends upon our ability to decide and act freely in accord with our own concerns, purposes or deepest convictions and not become a conduit for the initiatives or claims of others \u2013 including the claim that we should replace our own convictions with the \u201cimpartial point of view\u201d needed to maximize total utility.<\/p>\n

Rejoinders to criticism #2<\/h3>\n
\"Peter

Peter Singer<\/p><\/div>\n

There are rejoinders to the criticisms of what EA overlooks and denies. First, when it comes to overlooking justice or equality or freedom, Peter Singer<\/a> admits that effective altruists \u201ctend to view values \u2026 [like these] not as good in themselves but good because of the positive effects they have on social welfare.\u201d And yet, within EA there\u2019s no \u201cparty line<\/a>\u201d on that front. Indeed, given EA\u2019s commitment to cause neutrality and means neutrality, MacAskill<\/a> claims in principle that if it can be demonstrated that advancing such values directly is a \u201ccourse of action that will do the most good \u2026 then it\u2019s the best course of action by effective altruism\u2019s lights.\u201d That said, putting this principle into practice is difficult: it would require agreement at the outset on what justice or equality or freedom entails, for whom, and how it and its effects can be measured. To date, such difficulties have limited EA initiatives to ones that advance equality or justice indirectly<\/a>: say, countering inequality by alleviating the effects of poverty; or addressing injustice by promoting election reform, criminal justice reform or international labour mobility.<\/p>\n

Second, directly pursuing justice or equality or freedom internationally could introduce forms of cultural domination and colonization by imposing Western concepts on non-Western societies and exercising philanthropic spending power<\/a> that could silence or subvert local priorities<\/a>, as well as challenge the sovereignty<\/a> of host-nations.<\/p>\n

Third \u2013 turning to the denial of donor agency and the suppression of emotion \u2013 MacAskill<\/a> argues that EA seeks to harness such things, not eliminate them. Some effective altruists may choose<\/a> to adopt an impartial perspective if given evidence that this would allow their philanthropy to do more good for more people. Moreover, as proposed by economist Tyler Cowen<\/a>, \u201can inescapable feature of human psychology means at the normative level, there\u2019s just no way we can fully avoid partiality of some kind.\u201d In order to recognize and respond to a cause or need, we need first to identify with it and with the people or entities involved. The direction and degree of such identification differ across donors, and to honour these differences EA presents a menu of alternative cause areas and interventions deemed cost effective.<\/p>\n

And fourth, the critics of EA who echo Williams\u2019 insistence that morality is essentially first-personal rather than impersonal risk undermining the responsive regard for others that is the very basis for, and indeed the original meaning of, philanthropy: according to philosopher Jeff McMahan<\/a>, \u201cthe importance to oneself of one\u2019s own projects and attachments limits the extent to which morality can demand that one provide assistance to others.\u201d<\/p>\n

What can we take from the downfall of Samuel Bankman-Fried with regard to the philosophical foundations of Effective Altruism?<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\"Journalist

Journalist Kelsey Piper was surprised by the willingness of SBF to be interviewed on Twitter after news broke that his cryptocurrency exchange had collapsed, with billions in customer deposits apparently gone.<\/p><\/div>\n

Is SBF the exception that proves the general rule that the philosophical foundations of EA are sound? Or is he the example that demonstrates they aren\u2019t? Or is he neither? How did the utilitarianism he professed<\/a> as a student in 2012 apply in his professional life a decade later? Did he use it as an ethical theory to guide and justify his actions, or as a smoke screen to obscure them? Did he consider his own ethical protestations sincere, whereas those of his competitors a marketing ploy? Or was he just like the others? Such questions weren\u2019t answered definitively in his infamous Twitter exchange<\/a> with journalist Kelsey Piper, soon after he came under investigation in November 2022:<\/p>\n

Piper<\/strong>: \u201cSo the ethics stuff – mostly a front? People will like you if you win and hate you if you lose and that\u2019s how it all really works?”<\/em><\/p>\n

SBF<\/strong>: \u201cYeah. I mean that’s not *all* of it. But it\u2019s a lot\u2026.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Piper<\/strong>: \u201cYou were really good at talking about ethics for someone who kind of saw it all as a game with winners and losers.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

SBF<\/strong>: \u201cYa. Hehe. I had to be. It\u2019s what reputations are made of, to some extent. I feel bad for those who get fucked by it. By this dumb game we woke westerners play where we say all the right shiboleths (sic) and so everyone likes us.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

By Ord<\/a>\u2019s account: \u201cI don\u2019t think anyone fully understands what motivated Sam (or anyone else who was involved). I don\u2019t know how much of it was greed, vanity, pride, shame, or genuinely trying to do good\u2026. [If he remained a utilitarian, then] it increasingly seems he was that most dangerous of things \u2013 a naive utilitarian \u2013 making the kind of mistakes that philosophers (including the leading utilitarians) have warned of for centuries\u2026. [T]he sophistications that he thought were just a sop to conventional values were actually essential parts of the only consistent form of the theory he said he endorsed.\u201d<\/p>\n

To my mind, it\u2019s unclear what role the philosophical foundations of EA played in the professional decisions of SBF. Hence, to judge those foundations by those decisions would be misleading. Nevertheless, his downfall revived two lines of criticism that raise issues and questions relevant to not only EA but also the philanthropic sector as a whole. I select three.<\/p>\n

1. What are or what should be our ethical anchors?<\/h3>\n
\"David

David Z. Morris, a writer about crypto topics and author of “Bitcoin is Magic,” wrote: “The problem for effective altruists is not just that one of their own behaved unethically. There is reason to believe that the ethos of effective altruism\u2026 enabled and even encouraged the disaster at every step along the way…”<\/p><\/div>\n

As noted above, EA has been criticized for its ties to utilitarianism and the premise that actions are moral to the extent their consequences promote total well-being.<\/p>\n

But what gives meaning or moral worth to our engagement with the philanthropic sector \u2013 whether as donors, volunteers, workers, advisors, collaborators or beneficiaries? Has it to do with the outcomes of our actions and whether they\u2019re good, or the duties and rules fulfilled by our actions and whether they\u2019re right, or the personal qualities underlying our actions and whether they\u2019re virtuous? How do we assess, perhaps question and possibly improve that goodness, rightness or virtue? Are there limitations or dangers in the standards we use? How do we work with others or in contexts that value standards different from or contradictory to our own? To what extent can we temper or change our own standards without losing our way?<\/p>\n

If these questions seem irrelevant to how and why you engage with the philanthropic sector, why is that? Would you feel challenged by someone who sees them as fundamentally important?<\/p>\n

2. How do we decide upon actions that on the one hand could be harmful or problematic in themselves, but on the other hand could allow us to do more and better things?<\/h3>\n

As noted above, EA has been criticized for tolerating actions that might be intrinsically bad but instrumentally good: say, accepting donations from crypto, or recommending \u2013 albeit with cautionary guidelines \u2013 that some effective altruists pursue high-paying but perhaps corrupting or socially-harmful careers that would nevertheless enable them to donate more.<\/p>\n

\"Harvey

The Guardian newspaper reported that Harvey Weinstein offered $5 million to support female filmmakers (following multiple claims of sexual harassment against him), an offer rejected after widespread criticism. Photo is courtesy of David Shankbone.<\/p><\/div>\n

But how do or should we manage similar situations? For example, when and why should a charity refuse or return a donation<\/a>? Or when and why should a charity refuse or terminate a partnership with a for-profit corporation<\/a>? Should we share the outlook associated with William Booth<\/a>, who co-founded the Salvation Army in 1865, that \u201cthe trouble with tainted money is t\u2019aint enough of it\u201d? If not, then where do we draw the line? By what criteria does \u201ctainted\u201d become \u201cunacceptable\u201d \u2013 apart from being criminal? What sources of donations would violate your own values, or either oppose the mission of a charity you deal with or trigger irreparable reputational harm in the eyes of the public or key stakeholders: tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, extractive industries, nuclear power, social media, airlines, crypto, the pharmaceutical industry, a religious foundation? Would the size or purpose of the donation make a difference to your decision?<\/p>\n

Consider the following timeline for SBF. By 2013 he had affiliated with EA. In 2014 he took up the earning-to-give strategy<\/a>, working at Jane Street Capital<\/a> and donating half his salary. He started to build his crypto empire in 2017. Although crypto may be of disputed social value, it\u2019s not illegal. And although Bankman-Fried\u2019s promotional strategies may have been questionable (e.g., placing ads during the Super Bowl or in The New Yorker<\/em> and Vogue<\/em> magazines), they\u2019re not unprecedented. Sure enough, starting in 2018 EA leaders received personal reports<\/a> that he was duplicitous, refused to implement standard business practices, and had inappropriate sexual relations with subordinates. But these reports weren\u2019t circulating publicly, didn\u2019t allege any criminal activity and could simply have been rumours spread by disgruntled associates. Few if any foresaw the devastating events of November 2022. Certainly investors like the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan<\/a> didn\u2019t see them coming.<\/p>\n

At what point during that timeline, would you or a charity you deal with have refused or returned, say, a $1 million donation from SBF?<\/p>\n

3. What ways should or should not be used to influence donors\u2019 decisions on how much and where to give?<\/h3>\n
\"\"

“Perhaps you know of campaigns that have been truly ‘donor-centric’ in the sense of not resorting to practices that could sway or nudge their prospects into acting against their interests or priorities.” –Calum Carmichael. Photo is courtesy of Christine Roy.<\/p><\/div>\n

As noted above, EA has been criticized for constraining the agency of donors in deciding the amounts and destinations of their giving. It recommends 10% of one\u2019s income<\/a>, discourages acting on personal relationships and emotive appeal, and encourages a reliance on impersonal indicators of cost-effectiveness. As a result, some claim it both denies individuals the ability to decide and act on their own concerns, purposes or deepest convictions, and it overlooks normative but hard-to-pin-down goals such as liberty or justice.<\/p>\n

But if the charge against EA is that it tries to sway<\/a> donors \u2013 in other words, alter their conception of their own interests in ways that would have them act in a contrary manner \u2013 then could the same charge by leveled against other if not all fundraisers or fundraising campaigns in the sense of their doing the same thing albeit on different terms? Such campaigns might employ communication<\/a> and relationship-building<\/a> techniques designed to persuade. Such techniques might work on emotive rather than cognitive grounds, providing only selective information and relying on narratives or verbal or visual images that evoke rather than document. They might adjust the goalposts of \u201cimpact\u201d to match what can be evoked emotively, and encourage compliant donors to think of themselves as \u201cgenerous\u201d or \u201cvisionary\u201d and their gifts as \u201ctransformative\u201d or \u201cinspired.\u201d<\/p>\n

Could such campaigns be faulted for tampering with donor agency?<\/p>\n

Perhaps you know of campaigns that have been truly \u201cdonor-centric\u201d in the sense of not resorting to practices that could sway or nudge<\/a> their prospects into acting against their interests or priorities. If so, then \u2013 as suggested by the taxonomy constructed by Ian MacQuillin<\/a> \u2013 could such campaigns be at the expense of important considerations apart from donor agency, including what EA emphasizes: the well-being of actual or potential beneficiaries? Consider, for example, the decision of Leona Helmsley to establish in her will a $12 million trust fund<\/a> for her Maltese dog, Trouble. Or consider the reassurance offered by Bronfman and Solomon<\/a> that \u201c[i]n philanthropy, there are no wrong answers\u2026. You might want to fund an antigravity machine or a museum for dust mites. There may be more constructive uses for your money, and these objectives may sound crazy, but there is nothing wrong with them. In philanthropy, the choices are not between right and wrong, but between right and right.\u201d<\/p>\n

In closing<\/h3>\n
\"William

The need for reflection has been both identified by critics of EA and acknowledged by its leaders, such as William MacAskill, who said: “I had put my trust in Sam, and if he lied and misused customer funds he betrayed me, just as he betrayed his customers, his employees, his investors, & the communities he was a part of. For years, the EA community has emphasised the importance of integrity, honesty, and the respect of common-sense moral constraints.” Photo is courtesy of Nigel Stead.<\/p><\/div>\n

The downfall of Samuel Bankman-Fried has elicited calls for renewed and greater reflexivity within Effective Altruism \u2013 the approach to philanthropy with which he was closely associated. The need for such reflection has been both identified by critics of EA and acknowledged by its leaders<\/a> and members \u2013 all seeing this as an occasion to reconsider and perhaps revise its philosophical foundations and analytical methods in the hope of improving its ultimate effects.<\/p>\n

To my mind, the process of reflection required within EA is something in which the wider philanthropic sector could participate \u2013 or, indeed, should participate.<\/p>\n

In part 3 of this series, I\u2019ve summarized the criticisms of EA and their rejoinders as they relate to its philosophical foundations. From these I\u2019ve drawn out several questions that apply to the philanthropic sector more broadly. My intent here, as for the forthcoming parts 4 and 5, isn\u2019t to castigate or exonerate EA. Instead, it\u2019s to point out that the issues on which EA is or should be reflecting are ones that could guide more of us across the sector in reconsidering and perhaps revising our own outlooks and ways of engaging with philanthropy, in our shared hope of improving its ultimate effects.<\/p>\n

Banner photo is courtesy of Valdemaras D.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Calum Carmichael. (The full, five-part series is downloadable as a pdf: What Can the Philanthropic Sector Take from the Downfall of Samuel Bankman-Fried and His Ties to Effective Altruism, a five-part series by Calum Carmichael (2023).) Setting the stage for parts 3, 4 and 5 of this series In September 2022, the prescient but […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[2423,549,167],"tags":[1710,443,442,170,66,77,355,73,81,811,97,2344,2343,2341,2342,393,1827,184,1828,2263,2276,577,408,56,2267,1671,52,98,985,90,426,111,291,1945,1279,76,96,813,424,71,82,425,812,124,74,2345,75,84,72,2273,1732,423,251,182,427,434,185,229,326,578,2260,2261,371,83,475,814,616,444,171,893,78,79,1039,986],"yoast_head":"\nPart 3 of 5: What Can the Philanthropic Sector Take from the Downfall of Samuel Bankman-Fried and His Ties to Effective Altruism? | PANL<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"By Calum Carmichael. (The full, five-part series is downloadable as a pdf: What Can the Philanthropic Sector Take from the Downfall of Samuel\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/2023\/part-3-of-5-what-can-the-philanthropic-sector-take-from-the-downfall-of-samuel-bankman-fried-and-his-ties-to-effective-altruism\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Part 3 of 5: What Can the Philanthropic Sector Take from the Downfall of Samuel Bankman-Fried and His Ties to Effective Altruism? | PANL\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"By Calum Carmichael. (The full, five-part series is downloadable as a pdf: What Can the Philanthropic Sector Take from the Downfall of Samuel\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/2023\/part-3-of-5-what-can-the-philanthropic-sector-take-from-the-downfall-of-samuel-bankman-fried-and-his-ties-to-effective-altruism\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"PANL\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-07-21T14:04:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-11-15T02:28:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Calum-Carmichael_400x300_acf_cropped-300x225.png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"ALEXGILLIS\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"ALEXGILLIS\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"27 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/2023\/part-3-of-5-what-can-the-philanthropic-sector-take-from-the-downfall-of-samuel-bankman-fried-and-his-ties-to-effective-altruism\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/2023\/part-3-of-5-what-can-the-philanthropic-sector-take-from-the-downfall-of-samuel-bankman-fried-and-his-ties-to-effective-altruism\/\",\"name\":\"Part 3 of 5: What Can the Philanthropic Sector Take from the Downfall of Samuel Bankman-Fried and His Ties to Effective Altruism? | PANL\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2023-07-21T14:04:05+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-15T02:28:08+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/#\/schema\/person\/cffb40f64dee54a3a4f28e7d5780693a\"},\"description\":\"By Calum Carmichael. (The full, five-part series is downloadable as a pdf: What Can the Philanthropic Sector Take from the Downfall of Samuel\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/2023\/part-3-of-5-what-can-the-philanthropic-sector-take-from-the-downfall-of-samuel-bankman-fried-and-his-ties-to-effective-altruism\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/2023\/part-3-of-5-what-can-the-philanthropic-sector-take-from-the-downfall-of-samuel-bankman-fried-and-his-ties-to-effective-altruism\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/2023\/part-3-of-5-what-can-the-philanthropic-sector-take-from-the-downfall-of-samuel-bankman-fried-and-his-ties-to-effective-altruism\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Closer Takes\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/category\/closer-takes\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Part 3 of 5: What Can the Philanthropic Sector Take from the Downfall of Samuel Bankman-Fried and His Ties to Effective Altruism?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/\",\"name\":\"PANL\",\"description\":\"Carleton University\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/#\/schema\/person\/cffb40f64dee54a3a4f28e7d5780693a\",\"name\":\"ALEXGILLIS\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/11a338778a3a0fe61ebf7ccdb0e7b8b5?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/11a338778a3a0fe61ebf7ccdb0e7b8b5?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"ALEXGILLIS\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Part 3 of 5: What Can the Philanthropic Sector Take from the Downfall of Samuel Bankman-Fried and His Ties to Effective Altruism? | PANL","description":"By Calum Carmichael. (The full, five-part series is downloadable as a pdf: What Can the Philanthropic Sector Take from the Downfall of Samuel","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/2023\/part-3-of-5-what-can-the-philanthropic-sector-take-from-the-downfall-of-samuel-bankman-fried-and-his-ties-to-effective-altruism\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Part 3 of 5: What Can the Philanthropic Sector Take from the Downfall of Samuel Bankman-Fried and His Ties to Effective Altruism? | PANL","og_description":"By Calum Carmichael. (The full, five-part series is downloadable as a pdf: What Can the Philanthropic Sector Take from the Downfall of Samuel","og_url":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/2023\/part-3-of-5-what-can-the-philanthropic-sector-take-from-the-downfall-of-samuel-bankman-fried-and-his-ties-to-effective-altruism\/","og_site_name":"PANL","article_published_time":"2023-07-21T14:04:05+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-11-15T02:28:08+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Calum-Carmichael_400x300_acf_cropped-300x225.png"}],"author":"ALEXGILLIS","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"ALEXGILLIS","Est. reading time":"27 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/2023\/part-3-of-5-what-can-the-philanthropic-sector-take-from-the-downfall-of-samuel-bankman-fried-and-his-ties-to-effective-altruism\/","url":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/2023\/part-3-of-5-what-can-the-philanthropic-sector-take-from-the-downfall-of-samuel-bankman-fried-and-his-ties-to-effective-altruism\/","name":"Part 3 of 5: What Can the Philanthropic Sector Take from the Downfall of Samuel Bankman-Fried and His Ties to Effective Altruism? | PANL","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/#website"},"datePublished":"2023-07-21T14:04:05+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-15T02:28:08+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/#\/schema\/person\/cffb40f64dee54a3a4f28e7d5780693a"},"description":"By Calum Carmichael. (The full, five-part series is downloadable as a pdf: What Can the Philanthropic Sector Take from the Downfall of Samuel","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/2023\/part-3-of-5-what-can-the-philanthropic-sector-take-from-the-downfall-of-samuel-bankman-fried-and-his-ties-to-effective-altruism\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/2023\/part-3-of-5-what-can-the-philanthropic-sector-take-from-the-downfall-of-samuel-bankman-fried-and-his-ties-to-effective-altruism\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/2023\/part-3-of-5-what-can-the-philanthropic-sector-take-from-the-downfall-of-samuel-bankman-fried-and-his-ties-to-effective-altruism\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Closer Takes","item":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/category\/closer-takes\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Part 3 of 5: What Can the Philanthropic Sector Take from the Downfall of Samuel Bankman-Fried and His Ties to Effective Altruism?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/#website","url":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/","name":"PANL","description":"Carleton University","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/#\/schema\/person\/cffb40f64dee54a3a4f28e7d5780693a","name":"ALEXGILLIS","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/11a338778a3a0fe61ebf7ccdb0e7b8b5?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/11a338778a3a0fe61ebf7ccdb0e7b8b5?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"ALEXGILLIS"}}]}},"acf":{"thumbnail_type":"custom","thumb_list":"blueprint","add_banner":"yes","banner_image":{"ID":6960,"id":6960,"title":"Banner photo is courtesy of Valdemaras D,1600","filename":"Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600.jpg","filesize":148119,"url":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600.jpg","link":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/2023\/part-3-of-5-what-can-the-philanthropic-sector-take-from-the-downfall-of-samuel-bankman-fried-and-his-ties-to-effective-altruism\/banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-valdemaras-d1600\/","alt":"","author":"5","description":"","caption":"","name":"banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-valdemaras-d1600","status":"inherit","uploaded_to":6919,"date":"2023-07-18 20:48:39","modified":"2023-07-18 20:48:39","menu_order":0,"mime_type":"image\/jpeg","type":"image","subtype":"jpeg","icon":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp\/wp-includes\/images\/media\/default.png","width":1600,"height":778,"sizes":{"thumbnail":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-300x146.jpg","thumbnail-width":300,"thumbnail-height":146,"medium":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-400x195.jpg","medium-width":400,"medium-height":195,"medium_large":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-768x373.jpg","medium_large-width":768,"medium_large-height":373,"large":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-1400x681.jpg","large-width":1400,"large-height":681,"gallery-thumb":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-300x230.jpg","gallery-thumb-width":300,"gallery-thumb-height":230,"1536x1536":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-1536x747.jpg","1536x1536-width":1536,"1536x1536-height":747,"2048x2048":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600.jpg","2048x2048-width":1600,"2048x2048-height":778,"wide-image":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-1600x700.jpg","wide-image-width":1600,"wide-image-height":700,"square-small":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-150x150.jpg","square-small-width":150,"square-small-height":150,"people-thumbs":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-300x300.jpg","people-thumbs-width":300,"people-thumbs-height":300,"card-thumbs":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-400x300.jpg","card-thumbs-width":400,"card-thumbs-height":300,"video-thumbs":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-400x195.jpg","video-thumbs-width":400,"video-thumbs-height":195,"text-image":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-700x340.jpg","text-image-width":700,"text-image-height":340,"rotator-image":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-800x600.jpg","rotator-image-width":800,"rotator-image-height":600}},"banner_opacity":"lighter","custom_thumbnail":{"id":7024,"alt":"","title":"Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600_400x300_acf_cropped","caption":"","description":"","mime_type":"image\/jpeg","url":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600_400x300_acf_cropped.jpg","width":400,"height":300,"sizes":{"thumbnail":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600_400x300_acf_cropped-300x225.jpg","thumbnail-width":300,"thumbnail-height":225,"medium":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600_400x300_acf_cropped.jpg","medium-width":400,"medium-height":300,"medium_large":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600_400x300_acf_cropped.jpg","medium_large-width":400,"medium_large-height":300,"large":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600_400x300_acf_cropped.jpg","large-width":400,"large-height":300,"gallery-thumb":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600_400x300_acf_cropped-300x230.jpg","gallery-thumb-width":300,"gallery-thumb-height":230,"1536x1536":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600_400x300_acf_cropped.jpg","1536x1536-width":400,"1536x1536-height":300,"2048x2048":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600_400x300_acf_cropped.jpg","2048x2048-width":400,"2048x2048-height":300,"wide-image":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600_400x300_acf_cropped.jpg","wide-image-width":400,"wide-image-height":300,"square-small":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600_400x300_acf_cropped-150x150.jpg","square-small-width":150,"square-small-height":150,"people-thumbs":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600_400x300_acf_cropped-300x300.jpg","people-thumbs-width":300,"people-thumbs-height":300,"card-thumbs":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600_400x300_acf_cropped.jpg","card-thumbs-width":400,"card-thumbs-height":300,"video-thumbs":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600_400x300_acf_cropped.jpg","video-thumbs-width":400,"video-thumbs-height":300,"text-image":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600_400x300_acf_cropped.jpg","text-image-width":400,"text-image-height":300,"rotator-image":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600_400x300_acf_cropped.jpg","rotator-image-width":400,"rotator-image-height":300},"original_image":{"id":6960,"alt":"","title":"Banner photo is courtesy of Valdemaras D,1600","caption":"","description":"","mime_type":"image\/jpeg","url":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600.jpg","width":1600,"height":778,"sizes":{"thumbnail":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-300x146.jpg","thumbnail-width":300,"thumbnail-height":146,"medium":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-400x195.jpg","medium-width":400,"medium-height":195,"medium_large":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-768x373.jpg","medium_large-width":768,"medium_large-height":373,"large":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-1400x681.jpg","large-width":1400,"large-height":681,"gallery-thumb":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-300x230.jpg","gallery-thumb-width":300,"gallery-thumb-height":230,"1536x1536":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-1536x747.jpg","1536x1536-width":1536,"1536x1536-height":747,"2048x2048":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600.jpg","2048x2048-width":1600,"2048x2048-height":778,"wide-image":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-1600x700.jpg","wide-image-width":1600,"wide-image-height":700,"square-small":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-150x150.jpg","square-small-width":150,"square-small-height":150,"people-thumbs":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-300x300.jpg","people-thumbs-width":300,"people-thumbs-height":300,"card-thumbs":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-400x300.jpg","card-thumbs-width":400,"card-thumbs-height":300,"video-thumbs":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-400x195.jpg","video-thumbs-width":400,"video-thumbs-height":195,"text-image":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-700x340.jpg","text-image-width":700,"text-image-height":340,"rotator-image":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-content\/uploads\/Banner-photo-is-courtesy-of-Valdemaras-D1600-800x600.jpg","rotator-image-width":800,"rotator-image-height":600}}}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6919"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6919"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6919\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7568,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6919\/revisions\/7568"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6919"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6919"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/panl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6919"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}