Humans are just more important. If you disagree, how many chickens would you trade your mother’s life for?
This feels right to say, but open to arguments against it.
The only context for me where it would make more sense to spend it on AW, would be if somehow the ripple effect from doing so would benefit humans more than investing it directly into global health.
Maybe by improving nutrition, or improving global morals by not allowing other living beings to suffer, or just having a clear conscience.
I’m not saying an animal suffering is right or acceptable, but it comes second, and will always come second to me, at least while human suffering is still so so high.
Humans are just more important. If you disagree, how many chickens would you trade your mother’s life for?
This is a provocative question that cuts to the heart of the issue. Let me offer a different hypothetical to illustrate the complexity of making such moral trade-offs.
Imagine a situation where you had to choose between saving the life of a complete stranger or saving the life of your mother. I expect you would choose your mother, and I would likely do the same. The emotional bond we feel outweighs our concern for a stranger.
Now consider an advanced, benevolent alien species observing this dilemma. From their impartial perspective, your mother and the stranger deserve equal moral consideration as sentient beings capable of suffering. The aliens wouldn’t prioritize one over the other based on personal attachment or individual characteristics.
Expanding this principle further: a chicken’s capacity to suffer deserves moral consideration as well, even if their inner lives differ from ours. The immense scale of animal suffering in factory farms — tens of billions of sentient beings in cruel conditions — is a major ethical catastrophe from an impartial view.
I’m not saying an animal suffering is right or acceptable, but it comes second, and will always come second to me, at least while human suffering is still so so high.
I completely agree that alleviating human suffering should remain a key priority. The scope of human struggles globally is vast and demands action.
However, this isn’t an either/or choice. $100 million — a tiny fraction of resources spent on human welfare — could dramatically improve conditions for billions of farm animals. There’s ample room to address both human and non-human animal suffering.
Critically, expanding our moral circle to include non-human animals isn’t at odds with human-focused altruism — it’s a matter of extending the same principles of compassion and concern for suffering that we apply to humans. It’s part of building a more ethical world for all sentient beings.
You’re right it was a provocative question trying to cut to the chase.
But here’s the thing, probably every single person has people close to them that they consider family. So yeah a random stranger would be less important to ME than my own mother, but that person also has someone that cares for them like I would for my mother. How do you explain to them that their life was sacrificed for x amount of chicken?
I guess for me, there is no amount of farmed animals that’s worth a human life. For as long as investing in animal welfare means that someone dies a preventable death, every single penny should be spent on humans.
And this is not a simple inconvenience that we’re considering. It’s not a paper cut for the of x animal lives. It’s human lives for animal lives. Would you give your life for animals?
Things to keep in mind
Realistically, spending money on animal welfare does benefit humans. Our general desire to not cause pain and suffering when we don’t have to, is important, and satisfying it would probably benefit us and the society in many ways.
I would change my answer more towards the right if someone could show me some research or arguments for that.
But convincing me that any amount of farmed animals is worth more than a human life.. I’m not sure what that would take.
Humans are just more important. If you disagree, how many chickens would you trade your mother’s life for?
This feels right to say, but open to arguments against it.
The only context for me where it would make more sense to spend it on AW, would be if somehow the ripple effect from doing so would benefit humans more than investing it directly into global health.
Maybe by improving nutrition, or improving global morals by not allowing other living beings to suffer, or just having a clear conscience.
I’m not saying an animal suffering is right or acceptable, but it comes second, and will always come second to me, at least while human suffering is still so so high.
This is a provocative question that cuts to the heart of the issue. Let me offer a different hypothetical to illustrate the complexity of making such moral trade-offs.
Imagine a situation where you had to choose between saving the life of a complete stranger or saving the life of your mother. I expect you would choose your mother, and I would likely do the same. The emotional bond we feel outweighs our concern for a stranger.
Now consider an advanced, benevolent alien species observing this dilemma. From their impartial perspective, your mother and the stranger deserve equal moral consideration as sentient beings capable of suffering. The aliens wouldn’t prioritize one over the other based on personal attachment or individual characteristics.
Expanding this principle further: a chicken’s capacity to suffer deserves moral consideration as well, even if their inner lives differ from ours. The immense scale of animal suffering in factory farms — tens of billions of sentient beings in cruel conditions — is a major ethical catastrophe from an impartial view.
I completely agree that alleviating human suffering should remain a key priority. The scope of human struggles globally is vast and demands action.
However, this isn’t an either/or choice. $100 million — a tiny fraction of resources spent on human welfare — could dramatically improve conditions for billions of farm animals. There’s ample room to address both human and non-human animal suffering.
Critically, expanding our moral circle to include non-human animals isn’t at odds with human-focused altruism — it’s a matter of extending the same principles of compassion and concern for suffering that we apply to humans. It’s part of building a more ethical world for all sentient beings.
Thanks for the detailed reply!
You’re right it was a provocative question trying to cut to the chase.
But here’s the thing, probably every single person has people close to them that they consider family. So yeah a random stranger would be less important to ME than my own mother, but that person also has someone that cares for them like I would for my mother. How do you explain to them that their life was sacrificed for x amount of chicken?
I guess for me, there is no amount of farmed animals that’s worth a human life. For as long as investing in animal welfare means that someone dies a preventable death, every single penny should be spent on humans.
And this is not a simple inconvenience that we’re considering. It’s not a paper cut for the of x animal lives. It’s human lives for animal lives. Would you give your life for animals?
Things to keep in mind
Realistically, spending money on animal welfare does benefit humans. Our general desire to not cause pain and suffering when we don’t have to, is important, and satisfying it would probably benefit us and the society in many ways.
I would change my answer more towards the right if someone could show me some research or arguments for that.
But convincing me that any amount of farmed animals is worth more than a human life.. I’m not sure what that would take.