Thanks for bringing this up Barry! The exact phrasing has gone through a lot of workshopping, but I didnât spot this. Perhaps I should change the debate statement to âglobal health and wellbeingâ to cover this area. On your specific suggestion, I disagree because âAnimal Welfare vs Human Welfareâ seems to suggest a necessary trade-off between animal and human welfare, whereas Iâm hoping that we will be discussing the best ways to increase welfare overall, whether for humans or animals.
Thanks Toby! Health is part of wellbeing, so âglobal wellbeingâ would be sufficient.
However, itâs worth noting that âglobal wellbeingâ should apply to all moral patients, whereas âglobal healthâ is usually understood as a human-specific set of interventions.
Exactly- I was also thinking of âglobal wellbeingâ but then realised that would also include animals. âGlobal health and wellbeingâ is the name for the cause area in OpenPhilanthropyâs terminology which only applies to humans, so I think that would have meaning to some people (although it is easy to overestimate average EA context when youâve been around it so long). Another alternative is to do something like we did on the last debate week, and have definitions of the terms appear when you hover over them in the banner. Iâll chat to Will, who is developing the banner, about our options when I see him tomorrow. Cheers!
It seems like the whole premise of this debate is (rightly) based on the idea that there is in fact a necessary trade-off between human and animal welfare, no? I.e. if we give the $100 million towards the most cost-effective human focused intervention we can think of then we are necessarily not giving it towards the most cost-effective animal-focused intervention we can think of, no? Of course it is theoretically possible that there exists some intervention which is simultaneously the most cost-effective intervention on both a humans-per-dollar and animals-per-dollar but that seems extremely unlikely.
Yep- there is a trade-off in the sense that the money will go to one, and the other will miss out. I wasnât very clear in my previous comment- sorry! What I meant is that we ideally arenât pitting human and animal welfare against each other. Most arguments, I expect, will be claiming that giving the money in one direction will increase welfare overall. In fact, this increase in welfare will accrue to either animals or humans, but the question was never âwhich is more deserving of welfareâ, it was âwhich option will produce the most welfareâ. Does that make it clearer? Itâs a subtler point than I thought while making it.
Thanks for bringing this up Barry! The exact phrasing has gone through a lot of workshopping, but I didnât spot this. Perhaps I should change the debate statement to âglobal health and wellbeingâ to cover this area.
On your specific suggestion, I disagree because âAnimal Welfare vs Human Welfareâ seems to suggest a necessary trade-off between animal and human welfare, whereas Iâm hoping that we will be discussing the best ways to increase welfare overall, whether for humans or animals.
Thanks Toby! Health is part of wellbeing, so âglobal wellbeingâ would be sufficient.
However, itâs worth noting that âglobal wellbeingâ should apply to all moral patients, whereas âglobal healthâ is usually understood as a human-specific set of interventions.
Exactly- I was also thinking of âglobal wellbeingâ but then realised that would also include animals. âGlobal health and wellbeingâ is the name for the cause area in OpenPhilanthropyâs terminology which only applies to humans, so I think that would have meaning to some people (although it is easy to overestimate average EA context when youâve been around it so long).
Another alternative is to do something like we did on the last debate week, and have definitions of the terms appear when you hover over them in the banner. Iâll chat to Will, who is developing the banner, about our options when I see him tomorrow.
Cheers!
Iâve just been informed that âglobal health and wellbeingâ actually is intended by OP to include animal welfare- so Iâm disagree-reacting the above comment.
Maybe you should have a separate debate week on the most appropriate name for the âglobal healthâ cause area ;o)
It seems like the whole premise of this debate is (rightly) based on the idea that there is in fact a necessary trade-off between human and animal welfare, no? I.e. if we give the $100 million towards the most cost-effective human focused intervention we can think of then we are necessarily not giving it towards the most cost-effective animal-focused intervention we can think of, no? Of course it is theoretically possible that there exists some intervention which is simultaneously the most cost-effective intervention on both a humans-per-dollar and animals-per-dollar but that seems extremely unlikely.
Yep- there is a trade-off in the sense that the money will go to one, and the other will miss out. I wasnât very clear in my previous comment- sorry!
What I meant is that we ideally arenât pitting human and animal welfare against each other. Most arguments, I expect, will be claiming that giving the money in one direction will increase welfare overall. In fact, this increase in welfare will accrue to either animals or humans, but the question was never âwhich is more deserving of welfareâ, it was âwhich option will produce the most welfareâ. Does that make it clearer? Itâs a subtler point than I thought while making it.