I like the central points that (i) even weak assumptions suffice to support catastrophic risk reduction as a public policy priority, and (ii) itās generally better (more effective) to argue from widely-accepted assumptions than from widely-rejected ones.
But I worry about the following claim:
There are clear moral objections against pursuing democratically unacceptable policies
This seems objectionably conservative, and would seem to preclude any sort of āsystemic changeā that is not already popular. Closing down factory farms, for example, is clearly ādemocratically unacceptableā to the current electorate. But it would be ridiculous to claim that there are āclear moral objectionsā to vegan abolitionist political activism.
Obviously the point of such advocacy is to change what is (currently) regarded as ādemocratically (un)acceptableā. If the advocacy succeeds, then the result is no longer democratically unacceptable. If the advocacy fails, then it isnāt implemented. In neither case is there any obvious moral objection to advocating, within a democracy, for what you think is true and good.
There are clear moral objections against pursuing democratically unacceptable policies
What we mean with this sentence is that there are clear moral objections against governments pursuing [perhaps we should have said āinstitutingā] democratically unacceptable policies. We donāt mean to suggest that thereās anything wrong with citizens advocating for policies that are currently democratically unacceptable with the aim of making them democratically acceptable.
OK, thanks for clarifying! I guess thereās a bit of ambiguity surrounding talk of āthe goal of longtermists in the political sphereā, so maybe worth distinguishing immediate policy goals that could be implemented right away, vs. external (e.g. āconsciousness-raisingā) advocacy aimed at shifting values.
Itās actually an interesting question when policymakers can reasonably go against public opinion. It doesnāt seem necessarily objectionable (e.g. to push climate protection measures that most voters are too selfish or short-sighted to want to pay for). Thereās a reason we have representative rather than direct democracy. But the key thing about your definition of ādemocratically unacceptableā is that it specifies the policy could not possibly be maintained, which more naturally suggests a feasibility objection than a moral one, anyhow.
But Iām musing a bit far afield now. Thanks for the thought-provoking paper!
I like the central points that (i) even weak assumptions suffice to support catastrophic risk reduction as a public policy priority, and (ii) itās generally better (more effective) to argue from widely-accepted assumptions than from widely-rejected ones.
But I worry about the following claim:
This seems objectionably conservative, and would seem to preclude any sort of āsystemic changeā that is not already popular. Closing down factory farms, for example, is clearly ādemocratically unacceptableā to the current electorate. But it would be ridiculous to claim that there are āclear moral objectionsā to vegan abolitionist political activism.
Obviously the point of such advocacy is to change what is (currently) regarded as ādemocratically (un)acceptableā. If the advocacy succeeds, then the result is no longer democratically unacceptable. If the advocacy fails, then it isnāt implemented. In neither case is there any obvious moral objection to advocating, within a democracy, for what you think is true and good.
Thanks for the comment!
What we mean with this sentence is that there are clear moral objections against governments pursuing [perhaps we should have said āinstitutingā] democratically unacceptable policies. We donāt mean to suggest that thereās anything wrong with citizens advocating for policies that are currently democratically unacceptable with the aim of making them democratically acceptable.
OK, thanks for clarifying! I guess thereās a bit of ambiguity surrounding talk of āthe goal of longtermists in the political sphereā, so maybe worth distinguishing immediate policy goals that could be implemented right away, vs. external (e.g. āconsciousness-raisingā) advocacy aimed at shifting values.
Itās actually an interesting question when policymakers can reasonably go against public opinion. It doesnāt seem necessarily objectionable (e.g. to push climate protection measures that most voters are too selfish or short-sighted to want to pay for). Thereās a reason we have representative rather than direct democracy. But the key thing about your definition of ādemocratically unacceptableā is that it specifies the policy could not possibly be maintained, which more naturally suggests a feasibility objection than a moral one, anyhow.
But Iām musing a bit far afield now. Thanks for the thought-provoking paper!