I feel bad that my comment made you (and a few others, judging by your commentâs agreevotes) feel bad.
As JackM points out, that snarky comment wasnât addressing views which give very low moral weights to animals due to characteristics like mind complexity, brain size, and behavior, which can and should be incorporated into welfare ranges. Instead, it was specifically addressing overwhelming hierarchicalism, which is a view which assigns overwhelmingly lower moral weight based solely on species.
My statement was intended to draw a provocative analogy: Thereâs no theoretical reason why oneâs ethical system should lexicographically prefer one race/âgender/âspecies over another, based solely on that characteristic. In my experience, people who have this view on species say things like âwe have the right to exploit animals because weâre stronger than themâ, or âexploiting animals is the natural orderâ, which could have come straight out of Mein Kampf. Drawing a provocative analogy can (sometimes) force a person to grapple with the cognitive dissonance from holding such a position.
While hierarchicalism is common among the general public, highly engaged EAs generally donât even argue for hierarchicalism because itâs just such a dubious view. I wouldnât write something like this about virtually any other argument for prioritizing global health, including ripple effects, neuron count weighting, denying that animals are conscious, or concerns about optics.
âThereâs no theoretical reason why oneâs ethical system should lexicographically prefer one race/âgender/âspecies over another, based solely on that characteristic. In my experience, people who have this view on species say things like âwe have the right to exploit animals because weâre stronger than themâ, or âexploiting animals is the natural orderâ I completely agree with this (although I think its probably a straw man, I canât see anyone here arguing those things).
I just think its a really bad idea to compare almost most argument (including non-animal related ones) with Nazi Germany and that thought-world. I think its possible to provoke without going this way.
1) Insensitive to the people groups that were involved in that horrific period of time 2) Distracts the argument itself (like it has here, although thatâs kind of on me) 2) Brings potential unnecessary negative PR issues with EA, as it gives unnecessary ammunition for hit pieces.
Its the style not the substance here Iâm strongly against.
(I didnât downvote your comment, by the way.)
I feel bad that my comment made you (and a few others, judging by your commentâs agreevotes) feel bad.
As JackM points out, that snarky comment wasnât addressing views which give very low moral weights to animals due to characteristics like mind complexity, brain size, and behavior, which can and should be incorporated into welfare ranges. Instead, it was specifically addressing overwhelming hierarchicalism, which is a view which assigns overwhelmingly lower moral weight based solely on species.
My statement was intended to draw a provocative analogy: Thereâs no theoretical reason why oneâs ethical system should lexicographically prefer one race/âgender/âspecies over another, based solely on that characteristic. In my experience, people who have this view on species say things like âwe have the right to exploit animals because weâre stronger than themâ, or âexploiting animals is the natural orderâ, which could have come straight out of Mein Kampf. Drawing a provocative analogy can (sometimes) force a person to grapple with the cognitive dissonance from holding such a position.
While hierarchicalism is common among the general public, highly engaged EAs generally donât even argue for hierarchicalism because itâs just such a dubious view. I wouldnât write something like this about virtually any other argument for prioritizing global health, including ripple effects, neuron count weighting, denying that animals are conscious, or concerns about optics.
âThereâs no theoretical reason why oneâs ethical system should lexicographically prefer one race/âgender/âspecies over another, based solely on that characteristic. In my experience, people who have this view on species say things like âwe have the right to exploit animals because weâre stronger than themâ, or âexploiting animals is the natural orderâ I completely agree with this (although I think its probably a straw man, I canât see anyone here arguing those things).
I just think its a really bad idea to compare almost most argument (including non-animal related ones) with Nazi Germany and that thought-world. I think its possible to provoke without going this way.
1) Insensitive to the people groups that were involved in that horrific period of time
2) Distracts the argument itself (like it has here, although thatâs kind of on me)
2) Brings potential unnecessary negative PR issues with EA, as it gives unnecessary ammunition for hit pieces.
Its the style not the substance here Iâm strongly against.