I aim to contribute to efforts to 1. find alternative action-guidance when standard consequentialism is silent on what we ought to do. In particular, I’m interested in finding something different from (or more specific than) Clifton’s “Option 3”, DiGiovanni’s non-consequentialist altruism proposal, or Vinding’s twoproposals. 2. reduce short-term animal suffering or finding out how to do so in robust ways, since I suspect most plausible solutions to 1 say it’s quite a good thing to do, although maybe not the best (and we might need to do 1 to do 2 better. Sometimes, cluelessness bites even if we ignore long-term consequences—e.g., the impact of fishing).
I aim to contribute to efforts to
1. find alternative action-guidance when standard consequentialism is silent on what we ought to do. In particular, I’m interested in finding something different from (or more specific than) Clifton’s “Option 3”, DiGiovanni’s non-consequentialist altruism proposal, or Vinding’s two proposals.
2. reduce short-term animal suffering or finding out how to do so in robust ways, since I suspect most plausible solutions to 1 say it’s quite a good thing to do, although maybe not the best (and we might need to do 1 to do 2 better. Sometimes, cluelessness bites even if we ignore long-term consequences—e.g., the impact of fishing).