Is offsetting harms ethically the same as not doing them?
This is a fascinating question, which Scott Alexander has blogged about twice (here and here). But ultimately, it’s not crucial to the value of this tool. The key question isn’t whether donating while eating meat is as good as going vegan (since, we think it is likely that almost no one using the calculator will be planning to change their diet otherwise). The question is whether eating meat and donating is better than eating meat and not donating. We think the answer to that is a confident “yes”.
Don’t we want people to change their diets?
It’s great when people change their diets! We just think that the movement against factory farming needs to test a variety of strategies for achieving its goals. Having multiple ways that individuals can take action—with different levels of commitment required—makes it more likely that people will take a first step in helping. Our aim is to expand the menu of options, not replace existing approaches.
Won’t offsetting cause people to change their diet less due to moral licensing?
We take this possibility very seriously, but we don’t see it as likely and believe it’s far outweighed by the benefits.
Given historically low rates of diet change, most people using our calculator wouldn’t have otherwise changed their diet. In fact, we hear frequently from donors using the calculator that they weren’t willing or able to change their diet and are glad to have found another way to help (see testimonials in the post^). Even in the rare case where someone does donate instead of changing their diet, the effect for animals would be neutral or (more likely) positive since we’ve built conservative assumptions into our calculator.
Moreover, taking a first step to help animals through donations may actually make people more open to future actions, as it helps them see themselves as someone who takes action on factory farming rather than someone who avoids thinking about the issue. It’s not just that beliefs drive actions – actions also shape beliefs. I’ve personally met a number of people who went vegan purely for health reasons only to find themselves becoming increasingly convinced by the ethical arguments over time. Forthcoming research from Samantha Kassirer supports the view that getting people to take actions that help farmed animals can increase their moral sympathy towards them 6 months later.
Finally, we think the benefit from the majority of users now eating meat and donating instead of eating meat and not donating safely outweighs potential negative effects.
Isn’t FarmKind the charity with that novel donation matching model?
Yes, we were.
We originally launched with a ‘split and boost’ donation model inspired by Giving Multiplier’s research. If you’re a regular forum reader, you may have first heard of us through a critique of this model. We shared a detailed response at the time, addressing those concerns, which you can see here.
Nonetheless, we’ve since decided to deprioritize this donation model and it’s no longer available on our website. We found that (unlike Giving Multiplier) we need to do quite a bit of persuading for people to be willing to support the farmed animal cause in the first place. By the time they’re convinced to donate, adding complexity to the process can create more friction than benefit. While the model continues to work well for Giving Multiplier (who’ve raised over $4M), we’ve found a simpler approach better serves our context.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is offsetting harms ethically the same as not doing them?
This is a fascinating question, which Scott Alexander has blogged about twice (here and here). But ultimately, it’s not crucial to the value of this tool. The key question isn’t whether donating while eating meat is as good as going vegan (since, we think it is likely that almost no one using the calculator will be planning to change their diet otherwise). The question is whether eating meat and donating is better than eating meat and not donating. We think the answer to that is a confident “yes”.
Don’t we want people to change their diets?
It’s great when people change their diets! We just think that the movement against factory farming needs to test a variety of strategies for achieving its goals. Having multiple ways that individuals can take action—with different levels of commitment required—makes it more likely that people will take a first step in helping. Our aim is to expand the menu of options, not replace existing approaches.
Won’t offsetting cause people to change their diet less due to moral licensing?
We take this possibility very seriously, but we don’t see it as likely and believe it’s far outweighed by the benefits.
Given historically low rates of diet change, most people using our calculator wouldn’t have otherwise changed their diet. In fact, we hear frequently from donors using the calculator that they weren’t willing or able to change their diet and are glad to have found another way to help (see testimonials in the post^). Even in the rare case where someone does donate instead of changing their diet, the effect for animals would be neutral or (more likely) positive since we’ve built conservative assumptions into our calculator.
Moreover, taking a first step to help animals through donations may actually make people more open to future actions, as it helps them see themselves as someone who takes action on factory farming rather than someone who avoids thinking about the issue. It’s not just that beliefs drive actions – actions also shape beliefs. I’ve personally met a number of people who went vegan purely for health reasons only to find themselves becoming increasingly convinced by the ethical arguments over time. Forthcoming research from Samantha Kassirer supports the view that getting people to take actions that help farmed animals can increase their moral sympathy towards them 6 months later.
Finally, we think the benefit from the majority of users now eating meat and donating instead of eating meat and not donating safely outweighs potential negative effects.
Isn’t FarmKind the charity with that novel donation matching model?
Yes, we were.
We originally launched with a ‘split and boost’ donation model inspired by Giving Multiplier’s research. If you’re a regular forum reader, you may have first heard of us through a critique of this model. We shared a detailed response at the time, addressing those concerns, which you can see here.
Nonetheless, we’ve since decided to deprioritize this donation model and it’s no longer available on our website. We found that (unlike Giving Multiplier) we need to do quite a bit of persuading for people to be willing to support the farmed animal cause in the first place. By the time they’re convinced to donate, adding complexity to the process can create more friction than benefit. While the model continues to work well for Giving Multiplier (who’ve raised over $4M), we’ve found a simpler approach better serves our context.
FYI, it appears the two links to SSC are the same.
Oops here’s the other one: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/28/contra-askell-on-moral-offsets/
FYI you can edit your original comment to add this in.