To me, it feels wrong to compare great moral tragedies to each other to make a point about their significance. I felt icky reading this. On top of that, I really don’t think the comparison is that helpful for emphasizing the significance of factory farming.
I can’t speak for the other people who downvoted this post, but I think that would explain why this post has not seen a positive reception.
I may well be an exception, but I find comparisons like this useful to internalise the pressingness of an issue, although I think spending decisions should be driven by cost-effectiveness considerations which depend on other factors besides scale. Quantifying the cost to save a life is also offensive to many people. However, I think it is quite important for prioritising, and arguably making some realise they could contribute to a better world much more cost-effectively by donating to GiveWell’s top charities instead of buying a slightly more expensive car.
More broadly, I tend to think it is good for me to be transparent about my beliefs as long as I express them calmly and politely.
I agree with the general reasoning of your comment.
However, I also think that this specific comparison is not very illuminating. You comapre these two moral tragedies along the dimension of QALYs lost. However, commonsense moral intuitions about the Holocaust—which shape our own intuitions, even if we reject commonsense morality—aren’t solely driven by an implicit quantification of its QALY burden. The intentional, systematic, and large-scale effort to exterminate an entire ethnic group also plays a significant role in our intuitive assessment. When multiple dimensions of evaluation influence our grasp of the moral value of something, comparing something else to it along only one of these dimensions may not help us much to internalize how good or bad it really is.
(ETA: I made a few edits to make the comment clearer.)
Commonsense intuitions about the moral badness of the Holocaust, however, do not seem primarily driven by an implicit quantification of its QALY burden; the fact that it was an intentional, systematic, and large-scale effort to exterminate an entire ethnic group clearly also plays a significant role.
Agreed. On the other hand, do you think factory-farming is less intentional and systematic than the Holocaust? This is not obvious to me. Most people have at least an intention to continue eating factory-farmed animals, and many (most?) continue to do so even after knowing they live in super bad conditions. I do not know whether a random German during the Second World War was more/less aware about the suffering of people in Nazi concentration camps than a random German today is aware about the suffering of animal in factory-farms.
I wonder whether comparing the Holocaust to past moral tragedies would also have felt wrong to people living in the Axis powers at the time the Holocaust was happening.
do you think factory-farming is less intentional and systematic than the Holocaust?
Yes, because consumers of animal products mainly demand the taste and texture associated with meat, eggs and milk; exceptions aside, people do not have an intrinsic preference that these products come from live animals (let alone sentient beings). Furthermore, even if factory farming could be described as intentional and systematic, it would not be the intentional and systematic extermination of an entire ethnic group, which seems central in the intuition shaping commonsense evaluations of the Holocaust.
Yes, because consumers of animal products mostly demand the taste and texture associated with meat, eggs and milk;
This does not seem obvious. According to an analysis from Rethink Priorities:
The price, taste, and convenience (PTC) hypothesis posits that if plant-based meat is competitive with animal-based meat on these three criteria, the large majority of current consumers would replace animal-based meat with plant-based meat.
[...]
The PTC hypothesis and premise are both likely false.
[...]
A majority of current consumers would continue eating primarily animal-based meat even if plant-based meats were PTC-competitive.
exceptions aside, they do not have an intrinsic preference that these products come from live animals (let alone sentient beings)
Citizens of the Axis powers also did not have an intrinsic preference to cause lots of human suffering. I suppose the Holocaust was instrumental even for the leaders of the Axis powers. If they had the option to cheaply and instantly kill all their targets, I guess they would.
Furthermore, even if factory farming could be described as intentional and systematic, it would not be the intentional and systematic extermination of an ethnic group, which seems central in the intuition shaping commonsense intuitive evaluations of the Holocaust.
I agree. At the same time, I believe striving to be impartial is good. I value welfare the same regardless of species, country, time or ethnic group.
This does not seem obvious. According to an analysis from Rethink Priorities:
Thanks for drawing this study to my attention. In this context, the truth of the price, taste, and convenience hypothesis is irrelevant, though; what matters is whether consumers of animal products have an intrinsic preference that this food comes from live animals in extreme agony, which is the feature of factory farming by virtue of which we regard it as seriously morally wrong. I have partly crossed out a sentence in my previous comment to make this clear.
Citizens of the Axis powers also did not have an intrinsic preference to cause lots of human suffering.
The claim is not that the Holocaust was morally evil because German citizens supported it. The claim is that the Holocaust was morally evil, to a significant degree, because it consisted of a systematic plan to exterminate all members of an ethnic group. Whether this was intended only by the Nazi leadership or by larger sections of German society is primarily relevant for assessing their degree of moral responsibility and blameworthiness, rather than for evaluating the Holocaust itself.
At the same time, I believe striving to be impartial is good. I value welfare the same regardless of species, country, time or ethnic group.
Me too, but as I said, our intuitive appraisal of the badness of the Holocaust is clearly shaped by the commonsense moral views I described.
I think you have a responsibility to talk with an appropriate level of sensitivity and respect when talking about a subject like the holocaust (which killed family members of people on this forum), and I don’t think just saying “the holocaust was horrible” twice meets this bar.
To me, it feels wrong to compare great moral tragedies to each other to make a point about their significance. I felt icky reading this. On top of that, I really don’t think the comparison is that helpful for emphasizing the significance of factory farming.
I can’t speak for the other people who downvoted this post, but I think that would explain why this post has not seen a positive reception.
Thanks, huw.
I may well be an exception, but I find comparisons like this useful to internalise the pressingness of an issue, although I think spending decisions should be driven by cost-effectiveness considerations which depend on other factors besides scale. Quantifying the cost to save a life is also offensive to many people. However, I think it is quite important for prioritising, and arguably making some realise they could contribute to a better world much more cost-effectively by donating to GiveWell’s top charities instead of buying a slightly more expensive car.
More broadly, I tend to think it is good for me to be transparent about my beliefs as long as I express them calmly and politely.
I agree with the general reasoning of your comment.
However, I also think that this specific comparison is not very illuminating. You comapre these two moral tragedies along the dimension of QALYs lost. However, commonsense moral intuitions about the Holocaust—which shape our own intuitions, even if we reject commonsense morality—aren’t solely driven by an implicit quantification of its QALY burden. The intentional, systematic, and large-scale effort to exterminate an entire ethnic group also plays a significant role in our intuitive assessment. When multiple dimensions of evaluation influence our grasp of the moral value of something, comparing something else to it along only one of these dimensions may not help us much to internalize how good or bad it really is.
(ETA: I made a few edits to make the comment clearer.)
Thanks, Pablo.
Agreed. On the other hand, do you think factory-farming is less intentional and systematic than the Holocaust? This is not obvious to me. Most people have at least an intention to continue eating factory-farmed animals, and many (most?) continue to do so even after knowing they live in super bad conditions. I do not know whether a random German during the Second World War was more/less aware about the suffering of people in Nazi concentration camps than a random German today is aware about the suffering of animal in factory-farms.
I wonder whether comparing the Holocaust to past moral tragedies would also have felt wrong to people living in the Axis powers at the time the Holocaust was happening.
Yes, because
consumers of animal products mainly demand the taste and texture associated with meat, eggs and milk;exceptions aside, people do not have an intrinsic preference that these products come from live animals (let alone sentient beings). Furthermore, even if factory farming could be described as intentional and systematic, it would not be the intentional and systematic extermination of an entire ethnic group, which seems central in the intuition shaping commonsense evaluations of the Holocaust.This does not seem obvious. According to an analysis from Rethink Priorities:
Citizens of the Axis powers also did not have an intrinsic preference to cause lots of human suffering. I suppose the Holocaust was instrumental even for the leaders of the Axis powers. If they had the option to cheaply and instantly kill all their targets, I guess they would.
I agree. At the same time, I believe striving to be impartial is good. I value welfare the same regardless of species, country, time or ethnic group.
Thanks for drawing this study to my attention. In this context, the truth of the price, taste, and convenience hypothesis is irrelevant, though; what matters is whether consumers of animal products have an intrinsic preference that this food comes from live animals in extreme agony, which is the feature of factory farming by virtue of which we regard it as seriously morally wrong. I have partly crossed out a sentence in my previous comment to make this clear.
The claim is not that the Holocaust was morally evil because German citizens supported it. The claim is that the Holocaust was morally evil, to a significant degree, because it consisted of a systematic plan to exterminate all members of an ethnic group. Whether this was intended only by the Nazi leadership or by larger sections of German society is primarily relevant for assessing their degree of moral responsibility and blameworthiness, rather than for evaluating the Holocaust itself.
Me too, but as I said, our intuitive appraisal of the badness of the Holocaust is clearly shaped by the commonsense moral views I described.
I think you have a responsibility to talk with an appropriate level of sensitivity and respect when talking about a subject like the holocaust (which killed family members of people on this forum), and I don’t think just saying “the holocaust was horrible” twice meets this bar.
Thanks, titotal. Upvoted.
I agree.
I disagree, but I appreciate you expressing your views.