Sam Bankman-Fried

Sam Bankman-Fried and the Consequences of Doing Evil that Good May Come

5 April 2024

3.5 MINS

Sam Bankman-Fried will face 25 years in jail for his $10 billion crypto fraud scheme. His story highlights the flawed moral logic behind secular “altruism” and the better path taught in Scripture.

FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried was sentenced Thursday to 25 years in prison for defrauding those who invested in his cryptocurrency exchange out of $10 billion before its swift collapse in late 2022. His legal defense is a cautionary tale about the slippery morality of post-modern thinking. Instead of following his example, Christians should go to God’s Word to see what is right.

With prosecutors asking for a sentence of 100 years, Bankman-Fried’s lawyers pleaded for a sentence of less than six years, based in large part on what they described as his strategy of “effective altruism” or “earning to give.” Essentially, they urged the court to view his crimes more favourably because he wanted to make the world a better place.

This moral reasoning is not confined to unscrupulous businessmen; it’s evident in policymaking, too. Consider the Biden administration’s arguments for violating the law on a range of policy issues. When they unilaterally canceled billions of dollars in student loan debt, it was to help the poor borrowers. When they ignored their obligations to enforce U.S. law at the southern border, it was to remedy the humanitarian plight of the migrants. This was in keeping with their vision of making the world a better place — at least, better from their moral viewpoint.

This principle was especially prevalent (and oppressive) during the COVID-19 pandemic, when health officials touted the benefits of masks, social distancing, and experimental vaccines either beyond what the evidence said or in contradiction of it — with the acknowledged goal of manipulating the public into actions health officials believed were for the common good. This same principle was behind oppressive or lawless government edicts, such as lockdown orders and vaccination mandates that threw people out of work, school shutdowns that caused learning loss, and eviction moratoriums that chose economic winners and losers. All of this was in keeping with their vision of making the world a better place.

Indeed, even unscrupulous businessmen direct their self-identified altruism toward political objectives. Federal prosecutors said Bankman-Fried used more than $100 million that he stole from customers to make political campaign contributions in the 2022 midterm elections. At some point, the line between selfless endeavors and selfish ones becomes blurred.

One major problem with this type of reasoning is the difference between intentions and results. People with good intentions can wreak great havoc through the unintended consequences of their actions. In this case, it seems that Bankman-Fried planned to borrow his investors’ money for his hedge fund and turn it into more money, so he could pay them back and also have surplus cash to donate to causes he valued. Instead, he lost his investors’ money. Idealists with good intentions are often the most dangerous in this regard, because they are carried along by the force of their good intentions and lack the circumspection to consider what unintended consequences might result from their actions.

A related problem with this type of reasoning is that it overlooks the limits on human actions. As social beings who share the image of God, tasked with exercising dominion over creation, humans do have an obligation to seek the good of both the people around us and the world we live in. But we are also limited creatures with finite energy, wealth, skills, talents, relationships, and wisdom. The implication of these limits is that our efforts to do good should begin with the people and places nearest us, and work out from there until we reach our limits. Bankman-Fried opted instead to exploit those nearest him in pursuit of grandiose, world-changing schemes, but it all came crashing down around him before he attained his goal.

A third problem with this type of reasoning is that people have radically different opinions about how to create a better world. Some people have crazy or evil ideas about what a better world looks like (think Thanos). If someone’s ideas for how to help the world begin by harming people, their small-scale moral failures call into question their moral judgment on a large scale, too.

Scripture provides a better perspective for how to be good stewards of our world, our money, and our fellow image-bearers. Jesus taught that good stewardship begins with the little things, “One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much” (Luke 16:10). Scripture counsels us to be faithful in the responsibilities we have and leave the results to the sovereign, limitless God who oversees all things. A faithful steward who steadily builds his skillset and expands his influence may accomplish far more good in the long run than a high-flying wunderkid who ends up in prison. From this perspective, it is utter folly to “do evil that good may come” (Romans 3:8).

Results-oriented moralising has been around for as long as people have thought that the ends justify the means. But, far from vindicating this utilitarian way of thinking, its grizzled history merely reinforces human depravity. By contrast, “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” (Proverbs 9:10), by it “one turns away from evil” (Proverbs 16:6). Loving our neighbor is a good thing, but we can only do so rightly when we love God foremost.

___

Republished with thanks to The Washington Stand. Originally titled, ‘The Consequences of Doing Evil that Good May Come’. Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

SHARE >

We need your help. The continued existence of the Daily Declaration depends on the generosity of readers like you. Donate now. The Daily Declaration is committed to keeping our site free of advertising so we can stay independent and continue to stand for the truth.

Fake news and censorship make the work of the Canberra Declaration and our Christian news site the Daily Declaration more important than ever. Take a stand for family, faith, freedom, life, and truth. Support us as we shine a light in the darkness. Donate now.

3 Comments

  1. 554a9ff870f7e26057b79d6981209773917699361d4441a332201fc7c09b51dc?s=54&d=mm&r=g
    John Thomas 5 April 2024 at 6:29 pm - Reply

    This is a poorly argued piece by Joshua Arnold.

    > “His legal defense is a cautionary tale about the slippery morality of post-modern thinking.”

    Joshua gives us no reason to believe that he knows anything about “post-modern thinking” or “effective altruism”. Most leading effective altruists are not fans of “post-modern thinking”. Some of the major figures are utilitarians, but others are not. There may be the odd postmodernist in the mix, but they are not prominent. Effective altruism is not attached to any one moral theory.

    > “… they urged the court to view his crimes more favourably because he wanted to make the world a better place.”

    Of course that was their argument, and so it should have been! Doesn’t Joshua realise that motive matters? People who knowingly and deliberately cause harm deserve harsher treatment than those who carelessly or unwittingly cause harm.

    > “This moral reasoning is not confined to unscrupulous businessmen; it’s evident in policymaking, too.”

    Wanting to make the world a better place is not “unscrupulous”, it’s admirable.

    > “This principle was especially prevalent (and oppressive) during the COVID-19 pandemic, when health officials touted the benefits of masks, social distancing, and experimental vaccines …”

    Ok, that explains a lot! Joshua is an ill-informed vaccine sceptic who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. But let’s continue examining what he has to say anyway.

    > “At some point, the line between selfless endeavors and selfish ones becomes blurred.”

    For Joshua to choose SBF’s political donations as his target here probably says more about Joshua than about SBF. There is no evidence that SBF believed his political donations were unsustainable. The fact that they were is a mark of incompetence, not evil.

    > “One major problem with this type of reasoning is the difference between intentions and results.”

    That is not “a problem with this type of reasoning”, it is a problem with human behaviour generally! That is not some kind of insightful revelation!

    > “A third problem with this type of reasoning is that people have radically different opinions about how to create a better world. Some people have crazy or evil ideas about what a better world looks like (think Thanos).“

    Yes, some people are crazy but reasonable people understand that a happier world is better than a miserable one. They will differ on how best to achieve the goal of a happier world, but to offer Thanos’ perspective as a plausible alternative is ridiculous!

    > “Results-oriented moralising has been around for as long as people have thought that the ends justify the means. But, far from vindicating this utilitarian way of thinking, its grizzled history merely reinforces human depravity.“

    Perhaps Joshua has the usual anti-utilitarian tropes in mind when he writes of “grizzled history” (Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc?) That is a failed critique of the theory because none of those three villains was a utilitarian.

    The great 18th Century Christian apologist, William Paley, declared “God Almighty wills and wishes the happiness of His creatures!” It’s a pity that Joshua doesn’t seem to understand that aiming to make the world a happier place is a good thing.

    Sadly, SBF messed up badly and is now suffering the consequences. The point I’m making is that his mistake was not in his moral theory, it was in his business practice.

  2. 0a0778486b206f29aaf0c2592cac1f44d89c5dc7db30d44fcdd4c957e168e8be?s=54&d=mm&r=g
    Paul Newell 5 April 2024 at 10:15 pm - Reply

    His business practice was based on corrupt morals.

  3. 0420391077f8111996bb838f71e47c0f9bd9c371f65b3429541324068047dbf1?s=54&d=mm&r=g
    Countess Antonia Maria Violetta Scrivanich 7 April 2024 at 11:30 pm - Reply

    Agreed with Paul Newell–” His business practice was based on corrupt morals “. There is no excuse for what he did –the truth is he did it for personal gain. Any excuse is BUNKUM just as the loss of our freedoms during Covid and current government policies is for our “good “—what a big , fat LIE ! Just a Power Grab. Agreed , it is Machiavellian, ie “the end justifies the means “! It assumes we are all uneducated idiots who cannot see the end game .

Leave A Comment

Recent Articles:

Use your voice today to protect

Faith · Family · Freedom · Life

MOST POPULAR

ABOUT

The Daily Declaration is an Australian Christian news site dedicated to providing a voice for Christian values in the public square. Our vision is to see the revitalisation of our Judeo-Christian values for the common good. We are non-profit, independent, crowdfunded, and provide Christian news for a growing audience across Australia, Asia, and the South Pacific. The opinions of our contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of The Daily Declaration. Read More.

MOST COMMENTS

GOOD NEWS

HALL OF FAME

BROWSE TOPICS

BROWSE GENRES