I agree with the other comments that the case against prioritising animal welfare is quite weak in this post.
If I understand the two envelope problems correctly, it says that it could be used to justify switching funds from global health to animal welfare—but it also could justify switching funds currently allocated to animal welfare towards global health.
Anyway, I think the post lacks actual arguments about why animal welfare should not be prioritised. Preferences do not tell us much, as stated by Michael StJules, since animals also have preferences (they run away when they are hurt).
The toy examples present situations where it’s equally likely that animal welfare is better or worse than global health (50% chance hedonism is true, 25% chance it’s 1000x times more/less effective).
But this is a strong assumption that severely lacks justification, in my opinion. Why would animals have a much lower moral weight than humans? This is the argument that needs to be addressed.
I agree-voted this. This post was much more ‘This argument in favour of X doesn’t work[1]’ rather than ‘X is wrong’, and I wouldn’t want anyone to think otherwise.
I agree with the other comments that the case against prioritising animal welfare is quite weak in this post.
If I understand the two envelope problems correctly, it says that it could be used to justify switching funds from global health to animal welfare—but it also could justify switching funds currently allocated to animal welfare towards global health.
Anyway, I think the post lacks actual arguments about why animal welfare should not be prioritised. Preferences do not tell us much, as stated by Michael StJules, since animals also have preferences (they run away when they are hurt).
The toy examples present situations where it’s equally likely that animal welfare is better or worse than global health (50% chance hedonism is true, 25% chance it’s 1000x times more/less effective).
But this is a strong assumption that severely lacks justification, in my opinion. Why would animals have a much lower moral weight than humans? This is the argument that needs to be addressed.
I agree-voted this. This post was much more ‘This argument in favour of X doesn’t work[1]’ rather than ‘X is wrong’, and I wouldn’t want anyone to think otherwise.
Or more precisely, doesn’t work without more background assumptions.
Oh, ok. It’s just that the first sentence and examples gave a slightly different vibe, but it’s more clear now.