I often think whether Benjamin Lay would be banned from the EA forum or EA events. It seems to me that the following exchange would have gotten him at least a warning within the context of vegetarianism: âBenjamin gave no peaceâ to slave owners, the 19th-century radical Quaker Isaac Hopper recalled hearing as a child. âAs sure as any character attempted to speak to the business of the meeting, he would start to his feet and cry out, âThereâs another negro-master!ââ
I canât think of any EAs that take actions similar to the following: âBenjamin Layâs neighbors held slaves, despite Layâs frequent censures and cajoling. One day, he persuaded the neighborsâ 6-year old son to his home and amused him there all day. As evening came, the boyâs parents became extremely concerned. Lay noticed them running around outside in a desperate search, and he innocently inquired about what they were doing. When the parents explained in panic that their son was missing, Lay replied: Your child is safe in my house, and you may now conceive of the sorrow you inflict upon the parents of the negroe girl you hold in slavery, for she was torn from them by avarice. (Swarthmore College Bulletin)â
Being attention-getting and obnoxious probably paid off with slavery because abolition was tractable. But animal advocacy is different. I think a big question is whether he was being strategic, or just obnoxious by nature? If we put Benjamin Lay in 2000, would he start cage-free campaigns or become PETA? Or perhaps find some angle weâre overlooking?
Iâve been thinking about Emreâs comment since I read it â and given this event on the Forum, I eventually decided to go and read Marcus Redikerâs biography of Lay. I recommend it for anyone interested in learning more about him as a historical figure.
To share some thoughts on the questions you posed, my feeling is that his extreme protests werenât based on any strategic thinking about social change, and I definitely donât think heâd be an incrementalist if he were alive today. Rather, I think his actions were driven by his extremely firm, passionately felt, and often spiritually-derived moral convictions â the same ones that convinced him to live in a cave and practice radical self-sufficiency. Actually, it seems like he had what we might describe as an excessive degree of âsoldier mindset.â From the Rediker text:
He was loving to his friends, but he could be a holy terror to those who did not agree with him. He was aggressive and disruptive. He was stubborn, never inclined to admit a mistake. His direct antinomian connection to God made him self-righteous and at times intolerant. The more resistance he encountered, or, as he understood it, the more God tested his faith, the more certain he was that he was right. He had reasons both sacred and self-serving for being the way he was. He was sure that these traits were essential to defeat the profound evil of slavery.
I donât know if the EA community would be wrong to exclude him today. He turned out to be ahead of his time in so many ways, and probably did meaningfully influence the eventual abolition of slavery, but this is so much easier to celebrate ex post. What does it actually feel like from the inside, to have extreme personal convictions that society doesnât share, and how do you know (1) that history will prove you right; and (2) that you are actually making a difference? I really worry that what it feels like to be Benjamin Lay, from the inside, isnât so dissimilar from what it feels like to be a Westboro Baptist Church member today.
I do think the role of radicalism in driving social change is underrated in this community, and I think it played a big role in not only the slavery abolition movement but also the womenâs suffrage movement, the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, etc. Itâs worth looking into the radical flank effect or Cass Sunsteinâs writing on social change if you are curious about this. Maybe one thing Iâd like to believe is that the world is antifragile and can tolerate radicals ranging the moral spectrum, and those who are on the right side of history will eventually win out, making radicalism a sort of asymmetric weapon thatâs stronger when you are ahead of your time on the moral arc of history. But thatâs a very convenient theory and I think itâs hard to know with any confidence, and the success of so many fascist and hateful ideologies in relatively recent history probably suggests otherwise.
In any case, I really admire Lay for his conviction and his empathy and his total dedication to living a principled life. But I also really admire communities like this one for their commitment to open debate and the scout mindset and earnest attempts to hear each other out and question our own assumptions. So I expect, and hope, that the EA community would ban Benjamin Lay from our events. But I also hope we wouldnât laugh at him like so many Quakers did. I hope we would look at him, scowling at us through the glass, and ask ourselves with total sincerity, âWhat if he has a point?â
I think youâre right that Benjamin Lay, who weâre currently celebrating, would totally be banned from EA events and blacklisted by the Community Health Team.
The same would happen for most historical moral heroes, like Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr.
If a community that is trying to be morally ambitious would ban people who, in retrospect, are considered moral heroes, this should make us reconsider our current starndards and processes.
I appreciate the point, but I also think EA is unique among morality-movements. We hold to principles like rationality, cause prioritization, and asymmetric weapons, so I think itâd be prudent to exclude people if their behaviour overly threatens to loosen our commitment to them.
And I say this as a insect-mindfwl vegan who consistently and harshly denounces animal experimentation whenever I write about neuroscience[1] (frequently) in otherwise neutral contexts. Especially in neutral contexts.
I often think whether Benjamin Lay would be banned from the EA forum or EA events. It seems to me that the following exchange would have gotten him at least a warning within the context of vegetarianism:
âBenjamin gave no peaceâ to slave owners, the 19th-century radical Quaker Isaac Hopper recalled hearing as a child. âAs sure as any character attempted to speak to the business of the meeting, he would start to his feet and cry out, âThereâs another negro-master!ââ
I canât think of any EAs that take actions similar to the following:
âBenjamin Layâs neighbors held slaves, despite Layâs frequent censures and cajoling. One day, he persuaded the neighborsâ 6-year old son to his home and amused him there all day. As evening came, the boyâs parents became extremely concerned. Lay noticed them running around outside in a desperate search, and he innocently inquired about what they were doing. When the parents explained in panic that their son was missing, Lay replied: Your child is safe in my house, and you may now conceive of the sorrow you inflict upon the parents of the negroe girl you hold in slavery, for she was torn from them by avarice. (Swarthmore College Bulletin)â
Being attention-getting and obnoxious probably paid off with slavery because abolition was tractable. But animal advocacy is different. I think a big question is whether he was being strategic, or just obnoxious by nature? If we put Benjamin Lay in 2000, would he start cage-free campaigns or become PETA? Or perhaps find some angle weâre overlooking?
Iâve been thinking about Emreâs comment since I read it â and given this event on the Forum, I eventually decided to go and read Marcus Redikerâs biography of Lay. I recommend it for anyone interested in learning more about him as a historical figure.
To share some thoughts on the questions you posed, my feeling is that his extreme protests werenât based on any strategic thinking about social change, and I definitely donât think heâd be an incrementalist if he were alive today. Rather, I think his actions were driven by his extremely firm, passionately felt, and often spiritually-derived moral convictions â the same ones that convinced him to live in a cave and practice radical self-sufficiency. Actually, it seems like he had what we might describe as an excessive degree of âsoldier mindset.â From the Rediker text:
I donât know if the EA community would be wrong to exclude him today. He turned out to be ahead of his time in so many ways, and probably did meaningfully influence the eventual abolition of slavery, but this is so much easier to celebrate ex post. What does it actually feel like from the inside, to have extreme personal convictions that society doesnât share, and how do you know (1) that history will prove you right; and (2) that you are actually making a difference? I really worry that what it feels like to be Benjamin Lay, from the inside, isnât so dissimilar from what it feels like to be a Westboro Baptist Church member today.
I do think the role of radicalism in driving social change is underrated in this community, and I think it played a big role in not only the slavery abolition movement but also the womenâs suffrage movement, the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, etc. Itâs worth looking into the radical flank effect or Cass Sunsteinâs writing on social change if you are curious about this. Maybe one thing Iâd like to believe is that the world is antifragile and can tolerate radicals ranging the moral spectrum, and those who are on the right side of history will eventually win out, making radicalism a sort of asymmetric weapon thatâs stronger when you are ahead of your time on the moral arc of history. But thatâs a very convenient theory and I think itâs hard to know with any confidence, and the success of so many fascist and hateful ideologies in relatively recent history probably suggests otherwise.
In any case, I really admire Lay for his conviction and his empathy and his total dedication to living a principled life. But I also really admire communities like this one for their commitment to open debate and the scout mindset and earnest attempts to hear each other out and question our own assumptions. So I expect, and hope, that the EA community would ban Benjamin Lay from our events. But I also hope we wouldnât laugh at him like so many Quakers did. I hope we would look at him, scowling at us through the glass, and ask ourselves with total sincerity, âWhat if he has a point?â
I think youâre right that Benjamin Lay, who weâre currently celebrating, would totally be banned from EA events and blacklisted by the Community Health Team.
The same would happen for most historical moral heroes, like Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr.
If a community that is trying to be morally ambitious would ban people who, in retrospect, are considered moral heroes, this should make us reconsider our current starndards and processes.
I appreciate the point, but I also think EA is unique among morality-movements. We hold to principles like rationality, cause prioritization, and asymmetric weapons, so I think itâd be prudent to exclude people if their behaviour overly threatens to loosen our commitment to them.
And I say this as a insect-mindfwl vegan who consistently and harshly denounces animal experimentation whenever I write about neuroscience[1] (frequently) in otherwise neutral contexts. Especially in neutral contexts.
Evil experiments are ubiquitous in neuroscience btw.