I would not agree with that—because time is limited and there are no other options. You could be trying to lobby for outlawing meat consumption instead of advocating for killing people in third world countries.
Advocating for prioritising more animal welfare and mental health over global health and development due to the meat-eating problem, relative to a situation where there was not this problem, is different from advocating for killing people.
I would point out, though, that by your logic it actually would be good to save the life of the suicide bomber—by killing people they’d be saving animal lives.
I think saving the suicide bomber may well decrease nearterm suffering (1st few years afterwards), but I do not know about the overall effect (1st few decades).
If this is really your concern, then would you be equally willing to advocate for denying healthcare to your loved ones? For example, if someone you loved (who was not vegetarian/​vegan) was having a heart attack, would you forgo calling 911 in order to save the animals they might eat? Based on your answer to NickLaing’s response, it seems like the answer might be yes.
I estimate neutralising the harms caused to poultry birds and farmed aquatic animals per person in 2022 only requires donating 0.0214 $ to SWP. For a remaining life expectancy of 50 years, and constant harm to farmed animals over time, that would imply neutralising the negative impacts linked to saving a life with just 1.07 $ (= 0.0214*50). Saving the life of a person who is close to us can easily increase my donations by way more. Moreover, I would feel quite bad due to not saving them, which would also make me less productive, and therefore have a lower social impact, as I think this is driven by my work and donations.
Additionally, from a utilitarian standpoint it’s a bit hard to see the difference between letting someone die and killing them. Do you intend on killing anyone or committing any acts of terrorism?
No. I strongly endorse utilitarianism, and I think there is a huge difference between not saving someone in the other side of the world and killing someone. Utilitarism is all about assessing the consequences, and these are totally different. If I killed someone, I could easily go to prison, and therefore my donations and direct work would decrease a lot, thus majorly reducing my social impact. According to my estimate above, killing someone would only have to decrease my donations in expectation by 1.07 $ for it not to be worth it. In contrast, letting someone die in the other side of the world via not donating has no clear negative consequences for the potential donors. Lots of people buy expensive houses, whereas they could save tens of lives by buying cheaper houses, and donating the difference to GiveWell, which saves a life for 5 k$. However, such people are not arrested or considered anything close to evil.
Hi Rebecca.
Advocating for prioritising more animal welfare and mental health over global health and development due to the meat-eating problem, relative to a situation where there was not this problem, is different from advocating for killing people.
I think saving the suicide bomber may well decrease nearterm suffering (1st few years afterwards), but I do not know about the overall effect (1st few decades).
I estimate neutralising the harms caused to poultry birds and farmed aquatic animals per person in 2022 only requires donating 0.0214 $ to SWP. For a remaining life expectancy of 50 years, and constant harm to farmed animals over time, that would imply neutralising the negative impacts linked to saving a life with just 1.07 $ (= 0.0214*50). Saving the life of a person who is close to us can easily increase my donations by way more. Moreover, I would feel quite bad due to not saving them, which would also make me less productive, and therefore have a lower social impact, as I think this is driven by my work and donations.
No. I strongly endorse utilitarianism, and I think there is a huge difference between not saving someone in the other side of the world and killing someone. Utilitarism is all about assessing the consequences, and these are totally different. If I killed someone, I could easily go to prison, and therefore my donations and direct work would decrease a lot, thus majorly reducing my social impact. According to my estimate above, killing someone would only have to decrease my donations in expectation by 1.07 $ for it not to be worth it. In contrast, letting someone die in the other side of the world via not donating has no clear negative consequences for the potential donors. Lots of people buy expensive houses, whereas they could save tens of lives by buying cheaper houses, and donating the difference to GiveWell, which saves a life for 5 k$. However, such people are not arrested or considered anything close to evil.