This is a good idea, pointed at by ideas like sentientism and the veil of ignorance (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fcM7nshyCiKCadiGi/how-the-veil-of-ignorance-grounds-sentientism) but the problem is, who counts as a “person” whose utility function “gets a say” in deep democracy? If it’s only humans, that’s just blatantly arbitrary and speciesist. If we just say vertebrates, we rule out beings that clearly have a stake and a utility function, like octopi. But if we make a properly general filter and include all sentient beings, or in other words, all beings that can experience positive or negative valence, or in other words all beings that have a utility function at all, then we have to include insects and maybe even springtails and nematodes, and suddenly the interests of humans are a rounding error in the aggregate utility function. Most humans don’t like that and would see that as a tyranny of the majority
Yup. The constitution of the democratic community is inherently value laden. Even prioritizing conscious beings or beings with preferences is a value judgment. I don’t think there’s any option here but to debate and argue over who gets a seat at the table in a realpolitik kind of way, and then use deep democracy to extend standing to other beings. If, for example, only adult humans vote, you and I can still use our votes to extend political standing to animals, and if there is no tyranny of the majority and democracy does justice to the cardinality in people’s preferences, then people who care a lot about animals can give them a correspondingly large amount of status.
This is a good idea, pointed at by ideas like sentientism and the veil of ignorance (https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/fcM7nshyCiKCadiGi/how-the-veil-of-ignorance-grounds-sentientism) but the problem is, who counts as a “person” whose utility function “gets a say” in deep democracy? If it’s only humans, that’s just blatantly arbitrary and speciesist. If we just say vertebrates, we rule out beings that clearly have a stake and a utility function, like octopi. But if we make a properly general filter and include all sentient beings, or in other words, all beings that can experience positive or negative valence, or in other words all beings that have a utility function at all, then we have to include insects and maybe even springtails and nematodes, and suddenly the interests of humans are a rounding error in the aggregate utility function. Most humans don’t like that and would see that as a tyranny of the majority
Yup. The constitution of the democratic community is inherently value laden. Even prioritizing conscious beings or beings with preferences is a value judgment. I don’t think there’s any option here but to debate and argue over who gets a seat at the table in a realpolitik kind of way, and then use deep democracy to extend standing to other beings. If, for example, only adult humans vote, you and I can still use our votes to extend political standing to animals, and if there is no tyranny of the majority and democracy does justice to the cardinality in people’s preferences, then people who care a lot about animals can give them a correspondingly large amount of status.