Thanks for the response! I didnât 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 ârightsâ mindset can be a valuable extension of utilitarianism, for implementing the change we want to happen on an institutional/âlegislative 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. Thatâs how Iâd 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 Iâm not⌠talking about things because they are useful. i also donât think itâs fair description to what you doâitâs look to me you actually believe in animal rights, and this is why you support it. and i just⌠donât.
the reason EA donât use this framework, in my model, is that most EA donât believe in animal right. to change that, you need to convince people that itâs good framework and they should use it.
and then they will use it, nit because itâs useful, but because itâs true. which is the right thing to do, in my opinionâsaying things because one believe they are true. i donât even start the discussion about âis right talk will help animals and the worldâ, because even if the answer is âyesâ, i will not be part of it as long as i believe itâs wrong framework.
so, in short: EA tend to believe less in the rights framework then the general population and so use it less.
Thanks for the response! I didnât 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 ârightsâ mindset can be a valuable extension of utilitarianism, for implementing the change we want to happen on an institutional/âlegislative 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. Thatâs how Iâd 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 Iâm not⌠talking about things because they are useful. i also donât think itâs fair description to what you doâitâs look to me you actually believe in animal rights, and this is why you support it. and i just⌠donât.
the reason EA donât use this framework, in my model, is that most EA donât believe in animal right. to change that, you need to convince people that itâs good framework and they should use it.
and then they will use it, nit because itâs useful, but because itâs true. which is the right thing to do, in my opinionâsaying things because one believe they are true. i donât even start the discussion about âis right talk will help animals and the worldâ, because even if the answer is âyesâ, i will not be part of it as long as i believe itâs wrong framework.
so, in short: EA tend to believe less in the rights framework then the general population and so use it less.
(itâs also, in my opinion, one of the things that define EA, but Ozy explain it better then i can: https://ââthingofthings.substack.com/ââp/ââeffective-altruism-maximizing-welfarist )