Personally I’m very happy that long termists have a special bias towards humans. I think your statement here probably only holds if your are a pure hedonistic utilitarian, which many of us are not.
“II’m highly uncertain, but if I had to guess, humanity has had a net negative impact to date due to the immense scale of suffering on factory farms.”
I don’t think the bias is very hidden either. My not-, very-considered take would be I don’t think we necessarily need to “change course, but I think a truly impartial school of philosophy is useful and important too.. I would maybe favor 2 separate schools of thought and research about the future.
A school that explicitly favors human and serves human interests.
A school that tries to be completely impartial like you discuss.
Hedonistic utilitarianism is not the only way to be impartial. I’d imagine many moral theories can be made to be impartial whether it’s other forms of utilitarianism (e.g. preference-based), deontological theories (considering “rights” for all sentient beings) or virtue ethical theories.
That’s why “impartiality” is a core EA principle, but specific moral theories aren’t.
What is your philosophical argument for having a special bias towards humans? Or is it just that that’s how you feel and you’re willing to run with it? Part of my EA journey has been challenging how I feel because it doesn’t seem philosophically-justified. That’s a core part of EA.
I’m not in favor of an EA school that explicitly favors humans, because that’s what the rest of the world does. We should be trying to correct for this imbalance, not aligning with it.
Personally I’m very happy that long termists have a special bias towards humans. I think your statement here probably only holds if your are a pure hedonistic utilitarian, which many of us are not.
“II’m highly uncertain, but if I had to guess, humanity has had a net negative impact to date due to the immense scale of suffering on factory farms.”
I don’t think the bias is very hidden either. My not-, very-considered take would be I don’t think we necessarily need to “change course, but I think a truly impartial school of philosophy is useful and important too.. I would maybe favor 2 separate schools of thought and research about the future.
A school that explicitly favors human and serves human interests.
A school that tries to be completely impartial like you discuss.
I will also note that there were two kinds of responses I was expecting:
The “human-centric” approaches I list don’t actually assume a special status for humans and can themselves be justified under an impartial view
A special status for humans is fine and justified
Number 1 is plausible to me. Number 2...I guess I’m disappointed by because if EA can’t be impartial, then who can?
Of course there are some truly impartial factions in EA, but I get the sense it’s a minority.
Hedonistic utilitarianism is not the only way to be impartial. I’d imagine many moral theories can be made to be impartial whether it’s other forms of utilitarianism (e.g. preference-based), deontological theories (considering “rights” for all sentient beings) or virtue ethical theories.
That’s why “impartiality” is a core EA principle, but specific moral theories aren’t.
What is your philosophical argument for having a special bias towards humans? Or is it just that that’s how you feel and you’re willing to run with it? Part of my EA journey has been challenging how I feel because it doesn’t seem philosophically-justified. That’s a core part of EA.
I’m not in favor of an EA school that explicitly favors humans, because that’s what the rest of the world does. We should be trying to correct for this imbalance, not aligning with it.