In recent work, a number of philosophers have convinced a broad audience that, even if morality gives us latitude to pursue our own projects rather than always maximise the good, if we do choose to sacrifice our own interests for the sake of others, we must do something like the most good we can-we should get the most moral bang for our buck. This idea underpins the Effective Altruist movement. But there is an alternative view, according to which I am free to sacrifice my interests inefficiently if I want to. This paper explores these two views, first making clear the centrifugal force that forces us to these extremes, and away from a more moderate middle ground, and then arguing against the first extreme, and for the second.
