Person-affecting views are interesting, but pretty much universally dismissed in the EA community
I consider myself part of the EA community and I do not dismiss PAV… I am very sympathetic to them. When I have presented these others have not been dismissive. They are usually at least mentioned as a potential important part of a balanced breakfast of moral uncertainty.
Some articles in the forum seem to be sticking up for PAV, by Michael St Jules and others:
Unfortunately, these views have largely been neglected in population ethics, at least in EA and plausibly in academia as well,[69] while far more attention has been devoted to person-affecting views.
Yeah that’s fair—there are definitely people who take them seriously in the community. To clarify, I meant my comment as person-affecting views seem pretty widely dismissed in the EA funding community (though probably the word “universally” is too strong there too.).
This seems very much too strong to me:
I consider myself part of the EA community and I do not dismiss PAV… I am very sympathetic to them. When I have presented these others have not been dismissive. They are usually at least mentioned as a potential important part of a balanced breakfast of moral uncertainty.
Some articles in the forum seem to be sticking up for PAV, by Michael St Jules and others:
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/cXEvzaQhQGfvFSy5Z/the-problem-of-possible-populations-animal-farming
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/2BWQ4NrCEP7a4vzaW/defending-the-procreation-asymmetry-with-conditional
Here, the author states:
(Love your post by the way)
Yeah that’s fair—there are definitely people who take them seriously in the community. To clarify, I meant my comment as person-affecting views seem pretty widely dismissed in the EA funding community (though probably the word “universally” is too strong there too.).