Deaton's Analysis: Corresponding Money To Saving Lives?

In his essay, Deaton claims that sending money to save lives doesn’t have the impact that effective altruists believe and can even cause harm to those they are trying to help. He argues that if we truly want to help the most people, we should solve the larger issues that are behind the poverty and lack of healthcare that effective altruists commonly target with their donations. While it is true that only sending money to charities won't necessarily solve all of the problems in poor countries, Deaton overlooks the importance of the lives that are saved through these donations. There are still many people who would die or suffer without the work of charities like those that effective altruists donate to. We should not only try to create larger political and societal change, but also
It takes time to create trust in a corrupt government. Through donating to the right organizations who know how to provide effective help now, we can save lives while still making separate efforts to create long-term solutions. While the money given to fund healthcare and save lives in these areas might not be a permanent solution, should we just ignore those who are suffering in order to save more people in the future? Are the lives of people that may be saved in the future worth more than those we can save right now? It might not seem possible to be able to effectively help those in need now while also creating lasting change. However, if people genuinely do the most they can, it shouldn’t be impossible. “Effective altruism is based on a very simple idea: we should do the most good we can” (Singer). Whether the best thing you can do is get a high paying job and donate money to save lives like an effective altruist, or take political action to create change in the world, you should do the most you can, in a way that is best suited for