You say: âMy reason for objecting is that I think this conflates using moral arguments as a means with being motivated by morality in the endâŚâ
Response: Aha, thatâs a helpful clarification, though Iâm not sure I agree.
On the one hand, yes: I think most of the EA farm animal welfare community is motivated by a burning moral conviction to help animalsâtrue.
On the other hand, if 99%+ of our advocacy resources are focused on the welfare work that we think the vast majority of people agree with, then I think my statement holds up.
Our internal motivation is important, but if weâre not doing much to bring others on board with those understandings, I think itâs fair to say that weâve âwalked away from the moral foundation of our work.â
Iâm also, as discussed, concerned that this decision may be counter even to our welfare goals, since:
How likely are we going to be to build a powerful movement?
How likely are we to move the Overton Window?
Are we doomed to have a cause that people care about, but only after the myriad things that impact them personally? Where will those single-issue voters come from?
And are we going to have the talent problem you described in your most recent Sandcastles reflection?
I understand your definition of bad faith (âsaying something other than what you think is true for rhetorical reasonsâ) and understand that it can happen unintentionally. I know I do that sometimes and, like you, I appreciate having it pointed out. Here, though, I donât think I did that.
Thanks Aidan.
You say: âMy reason for objecting is that I think this conflates using moral arguments as a means with being motivated by morality in the endâŚâ
Response: Aha, thatâs a helpful clarification, though Iâm not sure I agree.
On the one hand, yes: I think most of the EA farm animal welfare community is motivated by a burning moral conviction to help animalsâtrue.
On the other hand, if 99%+ of our advocacy resources are focused on the welfare work that we think the vast majority of people agree with, then I think my statement holds up.
Our internal motivation is important, but if weâre not doing much to bring others on board with those understandings, I think itâs fair to say that weâve âwalked away from the moral foundation of our work.â
Iâm also, as discussed, concerned that this decision may be counter even to our welfare goals, since:
How likely are we going to be to build a powerful movement?
How likely are we to move the Overton Window?
Are we doomed to have a cause that people care about, but only after the myriad things that impact them personally? Where will those single-issue voters come from?
And are we going to have the talent problem you described in your most recent Sandcastles reflection?
I understand your definition of bad faith (âsaying something other than what you think is true for rhetorical reasonsâ) and understand that it can happen unintentionally. I know I do that sometimes and, like you, I appreciate having it pointed out. Here, though, I donât think I did that.