I picked up Moral Ambition by Rutger Bregman expecting something as thought-provoking as his previous two works, Utopia for Realists and Humankind. Instead I got something that felt almost like it could be featured on the If Books Could Kill podcast.
This is what I get for not reading the description before putting a library hold on something.
I have three big complaints about Moral Ambition.
Big Complaint the First: This book feels oddly neo-liberal for a book by someone who has previously argued for things like UBI and open borders. There’s so much focus on entrepreneurs and about how the people who really got things done in previous movements were the businessmen. It really felt like he set out to use the format of an Airport Bestseller to convince more finance bros to leave the industry and work on charities, which, cool I guess, but I’m not a finance bro so I found it really alienating?
Plus I don’t like the focus on individual action to solve big problems. Yes, most of us could do more good works/donate more to charity, but we should also be putting more pressure on government and big corporations to repair our social safety net so we’re not all out here trying to solve the world’s big problems ourselves.
Big Complaint the Second: This book is way too influenced by Effective Altruism. By all means, if you have some time and money and either don’t feel drawn to any particular cause, or are trying to choose between several, consider how you could have the biggest impact. And certainly, take the time to research any charities you consider donating to or volunteering with to see if they actually do good work and put a good percentage of their funds towards that work.
But I find the argument that we should only put our energy/time/money into the “best” causes with the “biggest” impacts to be ridiculous. Bregman gives the example that if you want to help blind people, you could sponsor a guide dog for one person (approximately $50,000) or you could donate $50,000 to the efforts to fight a leading cause of blindness, which would theoretically help more people. But here’s the thing — even if you managed to completely eliminate a disease that causes blindness, that wouldn’t change the fact that people would still go blind from other diseases or injuries. And that one person would still be blind, without a guide dog.
It’s great to donate money to send mosquito nets to countries with a high instance of malaria. It’s wonderful to save people from dying of malaria. But I don’t think it’s any less virtuous to spend that money to send food to Gaza or to do research on a very rare cancer — people are dying in all of these cases. They all need people to help them. Should we only focus on the causes that the most people are dying from, or the causes that are the cheapest/easiest to eliminate? Should we just not even bother with causes that don’t directly save human lives (such as your local animal shelter or wildlife conservation group?).
Big Complaint the Third: This book has a whiff of transphobia about it. Bregman makes an argument for movements failing to be effective because they alienate people by, y’know, expecting them to actually be decent people. My words, not his. Because his example was a pro-abortion movement daring to say that if you exclude trans people, you’re not a feminist.
Look.
We all know that if you allow in the transphobes, the racists, the Nazis, the other bigots, you signal to marginalized people that our organizations, our events, our spaces, aren’t safe for them, right? You cannot expect trans people to accept the presence of transphobes in an organization; you can’t expect trans and non-binary people to feel represented if your movement insists on acting like only women are impacted by reproductive health and abortion access.
On top of that, there is an entire chapter of this book that is an extended Hogwarts reference. In 2025. He’s out here endlessly reference notorious transphobe J.K. Rowling in 2025.
Hey did you know that if you want to reference a super-cool fictional school, the Charles Xavier’s School for Gifted Youngsters is RIGHT THERE? (Not saying Marvel has never been problematic, but their track record is better than JKR and the X-Men started out as a metaphor for the Civil Rights movement.)
There were a few random, non-transphobic, problematic quotes. Like you’re going to talk about the wonderful folks who hid Jewish people from Nazis, and then you’re going to unironically quote Nazi sympathizer Coco Chanel?!? Why does Chanel get such a pass?
Over all, I just found this book so disappointing. It really felt like Bregman was saying that if you’re not out there dedicating your life to not just a cause, but to the most beneficial cause, that you’re literally a loser. You have a normal job you like and you’re able to donate some money to charity, volunteer here and there, and support your family and friends when they need you? Well, you’re not curing malaria, so what good are you?
CWs and TWs: I feel like I’ve already mentioned them. Well, there’s also a discussion of a little girl who was seriously injured in a fire.
Source and Format: I borrowed the audiobook from Seattle Public Library, and I’m so glad I did instead of buying the hardback like I did with Humankind.
Reading Challenge Prompts
World of Whimm: Didn’t Know Premise 1st. Yeah teach me to think I can just trust an author who wrote two really good books!
SAL/SPL/KCLS: Author From Another Continent. Rutger Bregman is from The Netherlands, over in Europe. I do feel a little bad using a privileged (presumably cishet) white dude for this prompt, but since my bingo card is pretty diverse in general, I think it balances out in the end. Especially since I can warn some people away from this nonsense.
Reading Challenge Progress
Nook & Cranny (Card 1): 10 of 25, no bingos.
Nook & Cranny (Card 2): 15 of 25, 1 bingo.
Book Riot: 12 of 25.
Physical TBR: 6 of 12.
World of Whimm: 18 of 24, 3 bingos.
SAL/SPL/KCLS: 11 of 23, no bingos.