What might be the deontological constraints violated by animal product consumption and how serious are they. There is a meme among animal advocates that all animal product consumption is murder. For that reason, itās morally forbidden to ask people to reduce their animal product consumption since itās akin to asking them to reduce the murder they commit.
There are also some instances of doing harm where asking for reduction is totally permissible according to common sense morality, such as asking people to reduce their carbon emissions or their consumption of products made by slaves. I want to look more into whether murder comparison is really apt.
Iād be interested in reading an analysis about the murder comparison. There seems to be some elements of direct vs. indirect harm, partial vs. full responsibility for death, and different societal values. Iām not sure if I can truly parse it out.
Thoughts on how to resolve the tensions between being maximally honest vs running a coalition that unites different stakeholders that have different positions on the topic. Being maximally honest requires saying the things you believe as much as possible. Running a coalition requires acting inside the common ground, and not illegitimately seizing the platform to promote your specific position on the matter.
Assume that an agent A is doing something morally wrong, eg. fighting in a violent unjust war. You donāt have power to stop the war altogether, but you can get the relevant state sign an agreement against chemical weapons and at least prevent the most horrific forms of killings. What could be deontological restrictions on negotiating with wrongdoers? My preliminary conclusion: Itās good to negotiate for outcomes that are ex-ante Pareto superior even if they donāt cease the constraint violations.
Empirical research I would like to see in animal advocacy. Primarily to 1. have more robust estimates of impact in animal advocacy 2. Most research in animal advocacy is understandably driven by donor needs. I would like to list some questions that would be more decision-relevant for the animal advocacy organisations(when to campaign, how to campaign, which targets to select etc.).
Short thoughts on whether spreading the concept of veganism could be in tension with the principle ālove the sinner, hate the sinā. Veganism might implicitly create the category of non-vegans, and might make the activists see the world in terms of āsinners vs. innocentsā.
Thoughts on the idea that āWorking for institutional change is far more effective than working for individual change in animal advocacyā. How strong is the evidence behind that statement, in which contexts it might be wrong?
This seems like a doozy of a question to try to answer. Have you done your market research? Make sure no one else has written something about this in a similar way to what you intend first.
Thanks for this, I had a couple of things listed out. This looks like a nice way to prioritise them. I will list some ideas here.
What might be the deontological constraints violated by animal product consumption and how serious are they. There is a meme among animal advocates that all animal product consumption is murder. For that reason, itās morally forbidden to ask people to reduce their animal product consumption since itās akin to asking them to reduce the murder they commit.
There are also some instances of doing harm where asking for reduction is totally permissible according to common sense morality, such as asking people to reduce their carbon emissions or their consumption of products made by slaves. I want to look more into whether murder comparison is really apt.
Iād be interested in reading an analysis about the murder comparison. There seems to be some elements of direct vs. indirect harm, partial vs. full responsibility for death, and different societal values. Iām not sure if I can truly parse it out.
Thank you for all your feedback Constance!
Thoughts on how to resolve the tensions between being maximally honest vs running a coalition that unites different stakeholders that have different positions on the topic. Being maximally honest requires saying the things you believe as much as possible. Running a coalition requires acting inside the common ground, and not illegitimately seizing the platform to promote your specific position on the matter.
Assume that an agent A is doing something morally wrong, eg. fighting in a violent unjust war. You donāt have power to stop the war altogether, but you can get the relevant state sign an agreement against chemical weapons and at least prevent the most horrific forms of killings. What could be deontological restrictions on negotiating with wrongdoers? My preliminary conclusion: Itās good to negotiate for outcomes that are ex-ante Pareto superior even if they donāt cease the constraint violations.
Seems like the Geneva convention falls into this category?
Yeah, I think so.
Empirical research I would like to see in animal advocacy. Primarily to 1. have more robust estimates of impact in animal advocacy 2. Most research in animal advocacy is understandably driven by donor needs. I would like to list some questions that would be more decision-relevant for the animal advocacy organisations(when to campaign, how to campaign, which targets to select etc.).
Short thoughts on whether spreading the concept of veganism could be in tension with the principle ālove the sinner, hate the sinā. Veganism might implicitly create the category of non-vegans, and might make the activists see the world in terms of āsinners vs. innocentsā.
Thoughts on the idea that āWorking for institutional change is far more effective than working for individual change in animal advocacyā. How strong is the evidence behind that statement, in which contexts it might be wrong?
This seems like a doozy of a question to try to answer. Have you done your market research? Make sure no one else has written something about this in a similar way to what you intend first.