I have a general disdain for criticizing arguments as ivory-tower thinking without engaging with the content itself. I think it is an ineffective way of communication which leaves room for quite a lot of non-central fallacy. The same ivory tower thinkings you identified were also quite important at promoting moral progress with careful reflections. I don’t think considering animals as deserving moral attention is naturally an insulting position. Perhaps a better way of approaching this question will be to actually consider whether or not this trade-off is worth it.
p.s I don’t think the post called for a stop of GiveWell’s act of giving. The research questions you identified are important decision relevant open-ended questions which will aid GiveWell’s research. Perhaps not all of it can be solved, but it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t consider devoting a reasonable amount of resources to researching these questions. I’m a firm believer in world-view diversification. The comparative probably isn’t that GiveWell will stop helping someone die of malaria, but they may lower their recommendations for said program/or offer recommendations to make existing interventions more effective with an account for these new moral considerations.
I agree with you that criticising arguments without engaging with the content is bad. I do however probably agree with this statement.
“Putting a hold on helping people in poverty because of concern about insect rights is insulting to people who live in poverty and epitomises ivory-tower thinking that gets the Effective Altruism community so heavily criticised.”
I think that living a rich lifestyle in a western country, while saying that Givewell’s projects which help lift people out of poverty could be very harmful because of potential harm to insects is probably insulting to poor people, whether the argument is right or wrong. This also definitely gets the EA community heavily criticised.
And you say that the post doesn’t call for a stop on GiverWell’s act of giving, yet he suggests. ”I would say focussing on longtermist interventions is better, as their (longterm) effects are more predictable.”, which seems to lean in that direction.
I think a better approach due to the great uncertainty is to research things like terrestrial suffering, before referring to givewell or other types of giving. Why be potentially insulting or get the community criticised when you can encourage more research and thought without necessarily bringing global health and development into the question?
I have a general disdain for criticizing arguments as ivory-tower thinking without engaging with the content itself. I think it is an ineffective way of communication which leaves room for quite a lot of non-central fallacy. The same ivory tower thinkings you identified were also quite important at promoting moral progress with careful reflections. I don’t think considering animals as deserving moral attention is naturally an insulting position. Perhaps a better way of approaching this question will be to actually consider whether or not this trade-off is worth it.
p.s I don’t think the post called for a stop of GiveWell’s act of giving. The research questions you identified are important decision relevant open-ended questions which will aid GiveWell’s research. Perhaps not all of it can be solved, but it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t consider devoting a reasonable amount of resources to researching these questions. I’m a firm believer in world-view diversification. The comparative probably isn’t that GiveWell will stop helping someone die of malaria, but they may lower their recommendations for said program/or offer recommendations to make existing interventions more effective with an account for these new moral considerations.
I agree with you that criticising arguments without engaging with the content is bad. I do however probably agree with this statement.
“Putting a hold on helping people in poverty because of concern about insect rights is insulting to people who live in poverty and epitomises ivory-tower thinking that gets the Effective Altruism community so heavily criticised.”
I think that living a rich lifestyle in a western country, while saying that Givewell’s projects which help lift people out of poverty could be very harmful because of potential harm to insects is probably insulting to poor people, whether the argument is right or wrong. This also definitely gets the EA community heavily criticised.
And you say that the post doesn’t call for a stop on GiverWell’s act of giving, yet he suggests.
”I would say focussing on longtermist interventions is better, as their (longterm) effects are more predictable.”, which seems to lean in that direction.
I think a better approach due to the great uncertainty is to research things like terrestrial suffering, before referring to givewell or other types of giving. Why be potentially insulting or get the community criticised when you can encourage more research and thought without necessarily bringing global health and development into the question?