<<I took the fact that the forum overwhelmingly voted for animal welfare over global health to mean that people generally favor animal-friendly moral theories.>>
I think “generally favor” is a touch too strong here—one could discount them quite significantly and still vote for animal welfare on the margin because the funding is so imbalanced and AW is at a point where the funding is much more leveraged than ~paying for bednets.
Yep completely with Jason here. I voted a smidge in favor of giving the 100 million to animal rights orgs yet I’m pretty sure you’d consider me to have very human-friendly moral theories
To push that thinking a bit further compared with the general public, EAs have extremely animal friendly theories. For example I would easily be in the top 1 percent of animal-friendly-moral theory humans (maybe top 0.1 percent) but maybe in the bottom third of EAs?
That is a datapoint as much as many might mostly discount it.
What is your preferred moral theory out of interest?
When you say top 1 percent of animal-friendly-moral theory humans but maybe in the bottom third of EAs, is this just say hedonism but with moral weights that are far less animal-friendly than say RP’s?
Thanks Jack, I don’t have a clear answer to that right now. I have a messy mix of moral theories in which hedonism would contribute.
I’m so uncertain about the moral weights of animals right now (and more so after debate week, but updated a bit in favor of animals) and I value certainty quite a lot. I have quite a low threshold for feeling like Pascal is mugging me ;).
Again I think it depends on what we mean by an animal-friendly moral theory or a pro-global health moral theory. I’d be surprised though if many people hold a pro-global health moral theory but still favor animal welfare over global health. But maybe I’m wrong.
<<I took the fact that the forum overwhelmingly voted for animal welfare over global health to mean that people generally favor animal-friendly moral theories.>>
I think “generally favor” is a touch too strong here—one could discount them quite significantly and still vote for animal welfare on the margin because the funding is so imbalanced and AW is at a point where the funding is much more leveraged than ~paying for bednets.
Yep completely with Jason here. I voted a smidge in favor of giving the 100 million to animal rights orgs yet I’m pretty sure you’d consider me to have very human-friendly moral theories
To push that thinking a bit further compared with the general public, EAs have extremely animal friendly theories. For example I would easily be in the top 1 percent of animal-friendly-moral theory humans (maybe top 0.1 percent) but maybe in the bottom third of EAs?
That is a datapoint as much as many might mostly discount it.
What is your preferred moral theory out of interest?
When you say top 1 percent of animal-friendly-moral theory humans but maybe in the bottom third of EAs, is this just say hedonism but with moral weights that are far less animal-friendly than say RP’s?
Thanks Jack, I don’t have a clear answer to that right now. I have a messy mix of moral theories in which hedonism would contribute.
I’m so uncertain about the moral weights of animals right now (and more so after debate week, but updated a bit in favor of animals) and I value certainty quite a lot. I have quite a low threshold for feeling like Pascal is mugging me ;).
Again I think it depends on what we mean by an animal-friendly moral theory or a pro-global health moral theory. I’d be surprised though if many people hold a pro-global health moral theory but still favor animal welfare over global health. But maybe I’m wrong.