I donât really understand this stance, could you explain what you mean here?
Like Sammy points out with the Hitler example, it seems kind of obviously counterproductive/ânegative to âsave a human who was then going to go torture and kill a lot of other humansâ.
Would you disagree with that? Or is the pluralism you are suggesting here specifically between viewpoints that suggest animal suffering matters and viewpoints that donât think it matters?
As I understand worldview diversification stances, the idea is something like: if you are uncertain about whether animal welfare matters, then you can take a portfolio approach where with some fraction of resources, you try to increase human welfare at the cost of animals and with a different fraction of resources you try to increase animal welfare. The hope being that this nets out to positive in âworldâs where non-human animals matterâ and âworldâs where only humans matterâ.
Are you suggesting something like that or is there a deeper rule against ânot concluding that the effects of other peopleâs lives are net negativeâ when considering the second order effects of whether to save them that you are pointing to?
Iâm not proposing any sort of hard rule against concluding that some peopleâs lives are net negative/âharmful. As a heuristic, you shouldnât think itâs bad to save the lives of ordinary people who seem to be mostly reasonable, but who contribute to harmful animal agriculture.
The pluralism here is between human viewpoints in general. Very naively, if you think every human has equal insight into morality you should maximize the lifespan and resources that go to any and all humans without considering at all what they will do. Thatâs too much pluralism, of course, but I think refraining from cheaply saving human lives because theyâll eat meat is too far in the other direction.
I donât really understand this stance, could you explain what you mean here?
Like Sammy points out with the Hitler example, it seems kind of obviously counterproductive/ânegative to âsave a human who was then going to go torture and kill a lot of other humansâ.
Would you disagree with that? Or is the pluralism you are suggesting here specifically between viewpoints that suggest animal suffering matters and viewpoints that donât think it matters?
As I understand worldview diversification stances, the idea is something like: if you are uncertain about whether animal welfare matters, then you can take a portfolio approach where with some fraction of resources, you try to increase human welfare at the cost of animals and with a different fraction of resources you try to increase animal welfare. The hope being that this nets out to positive in âworldâs where non-human animals matterâ and âworldâs where only humans matterâ.
Are you suggesting something like that or is there a deeper rule against ânot concluding that the effects of other peopleâs lives are net negativeâ when considering the second order effects of whether to save them that you are pointing to?
Iâm not proposing any sort of hard rule against concluding that some peopleâs lives are net negative/âharmful. As a heuristic, you shouldnât think itâs bad to save the lives of ordinary people who seem to be mostly reasonable, but who contribute to harmful animal agriculture.
The pluralism here is between human viewpoints in general. Very naively, if you think every human has equal insight into morality you should maximize the lifespan and resources that go to any and all humans without considering at all what they will do. Thatâs too much pluralism, of course, but I think refraining from cheaply saving human lives because theyâll eat meat is too far in the other direction.