This doesn’t actually provide anything like a framework to evaluate Cause X candidates. Indeed, I would argue it doesn’t even provide a decent guide to finding plausible Cause X candidates.
Only the first methodology (expanding the moral sphere) identifies a type of moral claim that we have historically looked back on and found to be compelling. The second and third methods just list typical ways people in the EA community claim to have found Cause X. Moreover, there is good reason for thinking that successfully finding something that qualifies as Cause X will require coming up with something that isn’t an obvious candidate.
This doesn’t actually provide anything like a framework to evaluate Cause X candidates. Indeed, I would argue it doesn’t even provide a decent guide to finding plausible Cause X candidates.
Only the first methodology (expanding the moral sphere) identifies a type of moral claim that we have historically looked back on and found to be compelling. The second and third methods just list typical ways people in the EA community claim to have found Cause X. Moreover, there is good reason for thinking that successfully finding something that qualifies as Cause X will require coming up with something that isn’t an obvious candidate.