Expanding the moral circle is only possible by developing empathetic awareness in the broadest possible social sphere, and the problem with prioritizing animal welfare over human welfare is that it could jeopardize this process of awareness. Many people may interpret an interest in animal welfare as a manifestation of misanthropy: humanity is hateful, that’s why I love non-human animals.
The expansion of the moral circle is a consequence of a process of moral evolution. Fostering this process of moral evolution should be the priority.
Altruism is merely the economic manifestation of moral improvement, which actually takes place at a deeper level of the individual’s psychology, the source of behavior. Moral improvement implies, above all, controlling aggression and expanding empathy and benevolence.
If this moral improvement manifests in one million more individuals, it will almost certainly turn them all into vegans and opponents of animal mistreatment… although they may not make any financial donations to anti-animal cruelty organizations because they will consider the fight against human suffering to be a priority. However, they will indirectly contribute much more to animal welfare than five or ten thousand animal welfare activists (and financial contributors) whose capacity to drive moral evolution will be much lower, if only because numerically they will be much fewer.
Of course, this viewpoint will only be shared by those who believe we can actively promote moral evolution. In this forum, the discussion tends to focus on maximizing the benefits of existing altruistic action (a consequence of previous moral evolution) rather than developing strategies to increase the number of individuals motivated to act altruistically (promoting moral evolution).
This is a very interesting take. Sometimes I’m wondering to which extent I have undergone such moral evolution myself, to which extent is my own thinking about all these thing virtuous.
By the standards of this forum, I sometimes feel like I’m not virtuous enough. Like I haven’t yet gone through this mental shift that would allow me to bite certain bullets.
Prioritizing humans might seem backwards or spaciest, but that’s how I still feel on a gut level. I tried to elaborate why.
Prioritizing humans over non-humans is yet another ethical dilemma, among many others. If you cure one AIDS patient, you might be condemning five malaria patients to death.
I sometimes feel like I’m not virtuous enough
Virtue is something that has to do with emotions and beliefs. In everyday life, many people go to therapy to help them feel better and be consistent with their beliefs. That is, we act in accordance with our nature, recognizing our aspirations, our weaknesses, and our needs.
If our belief is altruism, we should act similarly, developing strategies to improve our behavior in the direction of altruistic action. Ideally, altruistic action would provide us with immediate emotional rewards (which would have a “zero economic cost”), but this doesn’t seem very attainable in daily life.
It occurs to me, based on some historical precedents, that altruism can be necessarily associated with behaviors of “moral excellence,” which are those that make an individual worthy of the utmost trust. A human environment of maximum trust can be emotionally attractive as a personal aspiration for many individuals… even if this requires making certain unavoidable sacrifices.
If you cure one AIDS patient, you might be condemning five malaria patients to death.
What if the AIDS patient will keep donating 10% of their income to AMF?
But more seriously, this particular ethical dilemma is so horrible that it makes me sick to even think about it.
My take is that within each country, we must make sure, through the healthcare system and insurance, that EVERYONE who is sick receives the therapy, no exceptions. Doesn’t matter how expensive their treatment is and how many children in Africa could be saved if the money was directed their way. No one should feel guilty because they are receiving expensive therapies.
Healthcare should be viewed separately from charity. When we’re giving to charity, we should give to most effective charities abroad, like AMF, or others from GiveWell’s list.
But when we’re talking about improving healthcare system, we should make sure that every single person receives treatment and that we don’t let anyone down. This is the basic of human dignity, how one society treats its members.
Such an attitude towards sickness would give everyone a peace of mind, that if they themselves get sick, they too would be taken care of.
So I think paying taxes that would be spent on healthcare is a great thing to do. I support high taxes and Universal Free Healthcare.
Now of course, I think this should be standard everywhere, in every single country, so that eventually there will be no need to make donations to AMF and like. Everyone who is sick would receive free healthcare in from their own healthcare system in their countries. Governments themselves would provide abundant bednets to everyone, and this would be seen as something as basic as having clean water and electricity… which unfortunately many countries still don’t have.
Expanding the moral circle is only possible by developing empathetic awareness in the broadest possible social sphere, and the problem with prioritizing animal welfare over human welfare is that it could jeopardize this process of awareness. Many people may interpret an interest in animal welfare as a manifestation of misanthropy: humanity is hateful, that’s why I love non-human animals.
The expansion of the moral circle is a consequence of a process of moral evolution. Fostering this process of moral evolution should be the priority.
Altruism is merely the economic manifestation of moral improvement, which actually takes place at a deeper level of the individual’s psychology, the source of behavior. Moral improvement implies, above all, controlling aggression and expanding empathy and benevolence.
If this moral improvement manifests in one million more individuals, it will almost certainly turn them all into vegans and opponents of animal mistreatment… although they may not make any financial donations to anti-animal cruelty organizations because they will consider the fight against human suffering to be a priority. However, they will indirectly contribute much more to animal welfare than five or ten thousand animal welfare activists (and financial contributors) whose capacity to drive moral evolution will be much lower, if only because numerically they will be much fewer.
Of course, this viewpoint will only be shared by those who believe we can actively promote moral evolution. In this forum, the discussion tends to focus on maximizing the benefits of existing altruistic action (a consequence of previous moral evolution) rather than developing strategies to increase the number of individuals motivated to act altruistically (promoting moral evolution).
This is a very interesting take. Sometimes I’m wondering to which extent I have undergone such moral evolution myself, to which extent is my own thinking about all these thing virtuous.
By the standards of this forum, I sometimes feel like I’m not virtuous enough. Like I haven’t yet gone through this mental shift that would allow me to bite certain bullets.
Prioritizing humans might seem backwards or spaciest, but that’s how I still feel on a gut level. I tried to elaborate why.
Prioritizing humans over non-humans is yet another ethical dilemma, among many others. If you cure one AIDS patient, you might be condemning five malaria patients to death.
Virtue is something that has to do with emotions and beliefs. In everyday life, many people go to therapy to help them feel better and be consistent with their beliefs. That is, we act in accordance with our nature, recognizing our aspirations, our weaknesses, and our needs.
If our belief is altruism, we should act similarly, developing strategies to improve our behavior in the direction of altruistic action. Ideally, altruistic action would provide us with immediate emotional rewards (which would have a “zero economic cost”), but this doesn’t seem very attainable in daily life.
It occurs to me, based on some historical precedents, that altruism can be necessarily associated with behaviors of “moral excellence,” which are those that make an individual worthy of the utmost trust. A human environment of maximum trust can be emotionally attractive as a personal aspiration for many individuals… even if this requires making certain unavoidable sacrifices.
What if the AIDS patient will keep donating 10% of their income to AMF?
But more seriously, this particular ethical dilemma is so horrible that it makes me sick to even think about it.
My take is that within each country, we must make sure, through the healthcare system and insurance, that EVERYONE who is sick receives the therapy, no exceptions. Doesn’t matter how expensive their treatment is and how many children in Africa could be saved if the money was directed their way. No one should feel guilty because they are receiving expensive therapies.
Healthcare should be viewed separately from charity. When we’re giving to charity, we should give to most effective charities abroad, like AMF, or others from GiveWell’s list.
But when we’re talking about improving healthcare system, we should make sure that every single person receives treatment and that we don’t let anyone down. This is the basic of human dignity, how one society treats its members.
Such an attitude towards sickness would give everyone a peace of mind, that if they themselves get sick, they too would be taken care of.
So I think paying taxes that would be spent on healthcare is a great thing to do. I support high taxes and Universal Free Healthcare.
Now of course, I think this should be standard everywhere, in every single country, so that eventually there will be no need to make donations to AMF and like. Everyone who is sick would receive free healthcare in from their own healthcare system in their countries. Governments themselves would provide abundant bednets to everyone, and this would be seen as something as basic as having clean water and electricity… which unfortunately many countries still don’t have.