This will make sense, except that pretty much every argument for offsets that I’ve seen comes from consequentialists or consequentialist-aligned people.
Offsetting doesn’t seem very virtuous, and deontologists generally have a poor model for positive rights/obligations.
I don’t think most nonconsequentialist theories provide a basis to accept offsetting either though. But I’d have to see some people make a positive case for it to know where they’re coming from.
I think they’re consistent with a Kantian perspective. Also, a risk averse consequentialist. Also, someone that likes to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions in a like for like manner for ethical-aesthetic reasons.
I sympathise with the point you make with this post.
However, isn’t it antithetical to consequentialism, rather than EA? EAs can have prohibitions against causing harms to groups of people.
How does this speak to people who use rule-based ethics that obliges them to investigate the benefit of their charitable gifts?
This will make sense, except that pretty much every argument for offsets that I’ve seen comes from consequentialists or consequentialist-aligned people.
Offsetting doesn’t seem very virtuous, and deontologists generally have a poor model for positive rights/obligations.
I don’t think most nonconsequentialist theories provide a basis to accept offsetting either though. But I’d have to see some people make a positive case for it to know where they’re coming from.
It seems to depend on the harm. People accept off-setting for minor harms, but not for major ones.
I think they’re consistent with a Kantian perspective. Also, a risk averse consequentialist. Also, someone that likes to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions in a like for like manner for ethical-aesthetic reasons.