Some people think that animals such as chickens have essentially no moral significance compared to that of humans; others think that they should be considered comparably important, or at least 1-10% as important. If you accept the latter view, farm animal welfare looks like an extraordinarily outstanding cause, potentially to the point of dominating other options: billions of chickens are treated incredibly cruelly each year on factory farms, and we estimate that corporate campaigns can spare over 200 hens from cage confinement for each dollar spent. But if you accept the former view, this work is arguably a poor use of money.
However, after RPās moral weight project, I do not think it is reasonable to assume (in expectation) that āchickens have essentially no moral significance compared to that of humansā. In general, OPās decision-making around how much should be allocated to each worldview remains unclear to me.
Hi zchuang,
I agree OPās writings have high reasoning transparency (certainly much more than my posts). In the very 1st bullet of their post on worldview diversification, they write:
However, after RPās moral weight project, I do not think it is reasonable to assume (in expectation) that āchickens have essentially no moral significance compared to that of humansā. In general, OPās decision-making around how much should be allocated to each worldview remains unclear to me.
Sorry I meant OP as in original poster not OpenPhil. But nice response nonetheless!
Iād suggest editing your top-level post (with brackets, like this: [the original poster, originally wrote āOPā which was ambiguous])