well, I personally don’t talk about animal rights because I don’t believe in animal rights, and find the way most right discussions go bad and mind-killed. I also don’t talk about right when talking about malaria in Africa! people don’t have “right” to not be sick. I want people not to be sick and die, and willing to pay for that.
I just generally don’t look on the world using right-glasses, and don’t find those googles helpful. quit the opposite.
my question is the opposite—why do you want to talk about rights? In my model, EAs tend talk less about right, because the sort of people who tend to become EAs tend to think less in framework of rights, and more in the EA framework. that the default EA reaction to sentence like “animals should have rights to wellbeing” should be “taboo the word right”.
(I don’t personally active in anything, i give 29.5% of my donations to Animal Welfare. and this is the name i use in a file that I created for myself, to describe the categories the way i think about them.)
Thanks for the response! I didn’t first think of different moral value systems which obviously have an impact on how people view the issue of animal suffering and well-being. I still think a ‘rights’ mindset can be a valuable extension of utilitarianism, for implementing the change we want to happen on an institutional/legislative level to improve animal welfare. I also think it is easier to imagine personhood for non-human animals when using a rights-based approach. They are not just beings that events are happening to, but individuals for whom the ability to live a full life using their capabilities is instrumental for their well-being. And there talking about rights can be useful. That’s how I’d quickly sum up how I think about it :)
well, i think the right framework is net-negative on the margin, and the world will be better place if people will talk less about human rights.
and I’m not… talking about things because they are useful. i also don’t think it’s fair description to what you do—it’s look to me you actually believe in animal rights, and this is why you support it. and i just… don’t.
the reason EA don’t use this framework, in my model, is that most EA don’t believe in animal right. to change that, you need to convince people that it’s good framework and they should use it.
and then they will use it, nit because it’s useful, but because it’s true. which is the right thing to do, in my opinion—saying things because one believe they are true. i don’t even start the discussion about “is right talk will help animals and the world”, because even if the answer is “yes”, i will not be part of it as long as i believe it’s wrong framework.
so, in short: EA tend to believe less in the rights framework then the general population and so use it less.
well, I personally don’t talk about animal rights because I don’t believe in animal rights, and find the way most right discussions go bad and mind-killed. I also don’t talk about right when talking about malaria in Africa! people don’t have “right” to not be sick. I want people not to be sick and die, and willing to pay for that.
I just generally don’t look on the world using right-glasses, and don’t find those googles helpful. quit the opposite.
my question is the opposite—why do you want to talk about rights? In my model, EAs tend talk less about right, because the sort of people who tend to become EAs tend to think less in framework of rights, and more in the EA framework. that the default EA reaction to sentence like “animals should have rights to wellbeing” should be “taboo the word right”.
(I don’t personally active in anything, i give 29.5% of my donations to Animal Welfare. and this is the name i use in a file that I created for myself, to describe the categories the way i think about them.)
Thanks for the response! I didn’t first think of different moral value systems which obviously have an impact on how people view the issue of animal suffering and well-being. I still think a ‘rights’ mindset can be a valuable extension of utilitarianism, for implementing the change we want to happen on an institutional/legislative level to improve animal welfare. I also think it is easier to imagine personhood for non-human animals when using a rights-based approach. They are not just beings that events are happening to, but individuals for whom the ability to live a full life using their capabilities is instrumental for their well-being. And there talking about rights can be useful. That’s how I’d quickly sum up how I think about it :)
well, i think the right framework is net-negative on the margin, and the world will be better place if people will talk less about human rights.
and I’m not… talking about things because they are useful. i also don’t think it’s fair description to what you do—it’s look to me you actually believe in animal rights, and this is why you support it. and i just… don’t.
the reason EA don’t use this framework, in my model, is that most EA don’t believe in animal right. to change that, you need to convince people that it’s good framework and they should use it.
and then they will use it, nit because it’s useful, but because it’s true. which is the right thing to do, in my opinion—saying things because one believe they are true. i don’t even start the discussion about “is right talk will help animals and the world”, because even if the answer is “yes”, i will not be part of it as long as i believe it’s wrong framework.
so, in short: EA tend to believe less in the rights framework then the general population and so use it less.
(it’s also, in my opinion, one of the things that define EA, but Ozy explain it better then i can: https://thingofthings.substack.com/p/effective-altruism-maximizing-welfarist )