I have several questions regarding the moral obligations associated with career choices, particularly in relation to the Effective Altruism (EA) movement's focus on maximizing the impact of donations and career decisions.

Firstly, it seems clear that donating a portion of income from a high-paying job—such as one earning six figures—can have a greater impact than taking a career path recommended by 80,000 Hours. I find that the job opportunities listed on the 80,000 Hours website often don’t appear to have an immediately tangible or clear impact. For example, many of the roles are centered around areas like AI research, which, to me, doesn’t seem to have a direct and measurable effect on pressing global issues, and the potential effectiveness is hard to calculate. In particular, such issues honestly seem borderline useless and not very "effective" or "altruistic".

I am struggling to understand EA’s focus on AI as a high priority, especially when compared to more immediate, current crises such as malaria or poverty. To me, the emphasis on AI research seems disproportionate, especially when considering the significant uncertainties about the future, such as hypothetical existential risks, alongside pressing current issues.

Furthermore, even more useful areas (like software engineers for I don't know a website regarding promoting malaria) would be probably be filled out by competent engineers and there is not really a point of worrying about said role not being filled. It will probably be filled out by someone, so there is no specific point in you being the one to fill it. On the other hand, donating 10% of your income in a high paying career is not really something that will be filled out by a substitute that decides to take the job instead if that makes sense.

From a moral standpoint, I would like to understand whether there is an obligation to pursue a high-paying career in order to maximize the amount of money available for donation. If someone chooses instead to pursue a lower-paying job driven by personal interest, while still donating 10% of their income, does this decision still fulfill the moral expectations of the EA movement, specifically those outlined by the 10% pledge?

Additionally, I feel uncomfortable with the idea that the pursuit of maximizing income could justify personal sacrifices, such as ending relationships to move for a higher-paying job, or even engaging in  work that can compromise personal boundaries for the sake of financial gain to donate (e.g., creating pornographic content on platforms like OnlyFans).

Moreover, I am troubled by the ethical dilemma of pursuing a career in an industry that may be seen as contributing to harm, yet provides a substantial income that could be donated to EA causes. For instance, many mechanical engineers work for companies like Lockheed Martin, which is controversial due to its ties to the U.S. military and involvement in defense projects. If a person were to accept a high-paying job at such a company, with the intent to donate a significant portion of their income to EA causes, is it morally justified to take that position? Is it justified to rob a bank, or to become a hitman, if you make a lot of money and save more lives via donation? Is it justified to marry or sleep with a rich person to take their money legally and donate it?

Lastly, I would appreciate some clarification on whether choosing a lower-paying career for personal satisfaction, while still donating 10%, goes against the principles of the 80,000 Hours framework or the 10% EA pledge.

What is the general stance of the EA movement or Giving What We Can or Peter Singer's thoughts on this in general?

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your insights.