I think there’s a pluralism of values here where the value of GHD doesn’t hinge just on it’s AW effects, i.e. we value it as a cause priority on its own. The point there was meant to be something more like “GHD looks good, but I also care about animals, so how do I decide what to do given the meat-eater problem? Well, it seems like the meat-eater problem might plausibly be canceled out by effects on WAW (more people taking up more space), so when you’re trying to decide the sign of the effect of GHD on AW it seems reasonable to conclude uncertainty.”
Effects on AW are an important consideration for GHD but they’re not the only or most important factor going into the overall positivity of the cause. Does that make sense?
Effects on AW are an important consideration for GHD but they’re not the only or most important factor going into the overall positivity of the cause. Does that make sense?
It sounds like this is actually the core crux of your view, then. If so, it might be worth making that explicit in the post. As it stands, the discussion of WAW could give the impression that it plays a more decisive role in your evaluation than it ultimately does, whereas your judgment seems to rest mainly on the effects on human welfare, given what you say here.
I also think this position of yours (that is now revealed) invites further scrutiny. Given how many more animals are plausibly affected by GDH compared to humans, concluding that AW is not the most important factor appears to rely on specific assumptions about moral weights that privilege humans to an extent that would be very controversial if it were made explicit. It could be helpful to spell those assumptions out, or at least acknowledge that they’re doing significant work here.
I think there’s a pluralism of values here where the value of GHD doesn’t hinge just on it’s AW effects, i.e. we value it as a cause priority on its own. The point there was meant to be something more like “GHD looks good, but I also care about animals, so how do I decide what to do given the meat-eater problem? Well, it seems like the meat-eater problem might plausibly be canceled out by effects on WAW (more people taking up more space), so when you’re trying to decide the sign of the effect of GHD on AW it seems reasonable to conclude uncertainty.”
Effects on AW are an important consideration for GHD but they’re not the only or most important factor going into the overall positivity of the cause. Does that make sense?
Nice, thanks for engaging! :)
It sounds like this is actually the core crux of your view, then. If so, it might be worth making that explicit in the post. As it stands, the discussion of WAW could give the impression that it plays a more decisive role in your evaluation than it ultimately does, whereas your judgment seems to rest mainly on the effects on human welfare, given what you say here.
I also think this position of yours (that is now revealed) invites further scrutiny. Given how many more animals are plausibly affected by GDH compared to humans, concluding that AW is not the most important factor appears to rely on specific assumptions about moral weights that privilege humans to an extent that would be very controversial if it were made explicit. It could be helpful to spell those assumptions out, or at least acknowledge that they’re doing significant work here.