A Game of Consequences

I agree with Kenan Malik, that the New York trial of 'philanthropic cryptoposter boy' Sam Bankman-Fried, nakedly exposes the flaws in the Effective Altruism (EA) philosophical movement (https://www.theguardian.com/business/commentisfree/2023/oct/08/getting-rich-in-order-to-give-to-the-poor-the-jury-is-out-but-it-seems-morally-shaky). Bankman-Fried became an acolyte of EA whilst at Oxford University. EA is part of the 'consequentialist' strand of philosophy, basically extolling folk to 'Do the most good you can' (no matter how you do it). Although it's numbers driven, it appears not million miles from 'utilitarism' (doing the greatest good for the greatest number). It's advocates maintain that getting 'filthy rich' can be an ethical choice, if it provides a maximal opportunity for 'charitable giving'. This message has, unsurprisingly, gone down extremely well in areas like commodity trading and speculative banking. There are, however, several problems with this philosophy including a) getting 'filthy rich' will damage some folk (it doesn't matter, if more benefit?); b) EA may be used as a 'cover' for dubious schemes; c) the 'philanthropist' could go on to make inappropriate choices, when distributing money and d) it discourages bright folk from 'mundane' (lower paid) careers like medicine, social working etc. EA's most obvious flaw, however, is that it doesn't concern itself with societal issues that produce the need for 'corrective' charity. It would apparently be philosophically OK to make a fortune from gas and oil speculation, so one could donate more charity to deal with the consequences of climate change. EA is also essentially wholly undemocratic, taking decision-making out of the hands of the collective, and handing it to life's 'winners'.