I strongly agree with this. I’ve had lots of frustrating conversations with SFE-sympathetic people that slide back and forth between ethical and empirical claims about the world, and I think it’s quite important to carefully distinguish between the two.
The whole “practical SFE” thing also seems to contradict this statement early in the OP:
1.2 Does SFE assume that there is more suffering than happiness in most people’s lives?
No, SFE’s core claim is that reducing suffering is more morally important than increasing happiness. This normative claim does not hinge on the empirical quantity of suffering and happiness in most people’s lives.
This may be true for some diehard suffering-focused EAs, but in my practical experience many people adduce arguments like this to explain why they are sympathetic to SFE. This is quite frustrating, since AFAICT (and perhaps the author would agree) these contingent facts have absolutely no bearing on whether e.g. total utilitarianism is true.
I strongly agree with this. I’ve had lots of frustrating conversations with SFE-sympathetic people that slide back and forth between ethical and empirical claims about the world, and I think it’s quite important to carefully distinguish between the two.
The whole “practical SFE” thing also seems to contradict this statement early in the OP:
This may be true for some diehard suffering-focused EAs, but in my practical experience many people adduce arguments like this to explain why they are sympathetic to SFE. This is quite frustrating, since AFAICT (and perhaps the author would agree) these contingent facts have absolutely no bearing on whether e.g. total utilitarianism is true.