For instance, one section begins “Intrinsic moral rights do not exist” - that’s certainly not what I believe and it seems inconsistent with other sections that talk about the “intrinsic moral weight” of animal populations, etc.
It’s definitely consistent—animals can have interests without having rights, just like humans.
Rights can point in a bunch of different ways depending on the moral inclinations of the reader. And integrating and applying them to policy is a very murky issue. So even if I wanted to investigate that side of things, I would have little ability to provide useful judgments to EAs.
At some point, it would be nice to include full arguments about morality. But that’s pretty low on my priorities, I don’t expect to add it in the foreseeable future. Those arguments already exist elsewhere.
While the fact that you’ve “shown your work” with the Excel spreadsheet helps people evaluate the same issues with different weights, if someone is interested in areas that you’ve chosen to exclude it’s less apparent how to proceed.
You can add a column besides the other topics, then insert a new row into the weight table (select three adjacent cells and press insert...). True it’s a little complicated—but I have to make the spreadsheet this way in order to make the sensitivity analysis work well.
I don’t think there’s much practical difference between “intrinsic moral interests” and “intrinsic moral rights”, but that’s not really the point—it’s more that I think given such differences in perspective between EAs, I’m not sure that documents like this are great for EA as a movement. I would at least prefer to see them presented less… authoritatively?
Like I said, that’s not really the point—it also doesn’t meaningfully resolve that particular issue, because of course the whole dispute is whose well-being counts, with anti-abortion advocates claiming that human fetuses count and pro-abortion people claiming that human fetuses don’t.
I dunno, maybe I’m overly cautious, but I’m not fond of someone publishing a well-made and official-looking “based on EA principles, here’s who to vote for” document, since “EA principles” quite vary—I think if EA becomes seen as politically aligned (with either major US party) that constitutes a huge constraint on our movement’s potential.
You said the problem was stating it authoritatively rather than the actual conclusions, I made it sound less authoritative but now you’re saying that the actual conclusions matter. The document has sufficient disclaimers as it is, I mean the preface clearly says EAs could disagree. You don’t see Givewell writing “assuming that poverty is the #1 cause area, which EAs may disagree on” multiple times and I don’t treat politics with special reverence as if different rules should apply. I think there’s something unhealthy and self-reinforcing about tiptoeing around like that. The point here is to advertise a better set of implicit norms, so that maybe people (inside and outside EA) can finally treat political policy as just another question to answer rather than playing meta-games.
the whole dispute is whose well-being counts, with anti-abortion advocates claiming that human fetuses count and pro-abortion people claiming that human fetuses don’t.
If I care about total well-being, then of course people who say that some people’s well being doesn’t count are going to be wrong. This includes the pro lifers, who care about the future well being of a particular fetus but not the future well being of any potential child (or not as much, at least).
You said the problem was stating it authoritatively rather than the actual conclusions, I made it sound less authoritative but now you’re saying that the actual conclusions matter.
Sorry, I perhaps wasn’t specific enough in my original reply. The “less authoritative” thing was meant to apply to the entire document, not just this one section—that’s why I also said I wasn’t sure documents like this are good for EA as a movement.
I think there’s something unhealthy and self-reinforcing about tiptoeing around like that. The point here is to advertise a better set of implicit norms, so that maybe people (inside and outside EA) can finally treat political policy as just another question to answer rather than playing meta-games.
Strong disagree. Political policy in practice isn’t “just another question to answer”—maybe it should be, but that’s not the world we live in—and acting as if it is strikes me as risky.
Neither is poverty alleviation or veganism or anything else in practice.
Again, strong disagree—many things are not politicized and can be answered more directly. One of the main strengths of EA, in my view, is that it isn’t just another culture war position (yet?) - consider Robin Hanson’s points on “pulling the rope sideways”.
It’s definitely consistent—animals can have interests without having rights, just like humans.
Rights can point in a bunch of different ways depending on the moral inclinations of the reader. And integrating and applying them to policy is a very murky issue. So even if I wanted to investigate that side of things, I would have little ability to provide useful judgments to EAs.
At some point, it would be nice to include full arguments about morality. But that’s pretty low on my priorities, I don’t expect to add it in the foreseeable future. Those arguments already exist elsewhere.
You can add a column besides the other topics, then insert a new row into the weight table (select three adjacent cells and press insert...). True it’s a little complicated—but I have to make the spreadsheet this way in order to make the sensitivity analysis work well.
I don’t think there’s much practical difference between “intrinsic moral interests” and “intrinsic moral rights”, but that’s not really the point—it’s more that I think given such differences in perspective between EAs, I’m not sure that documents like this are great for EA as a movement. I would at least prefer to see them presented less… authoritatively?
OK fine, in CSS3 it now simply says ” Absolutist arguments for or against abortion disappear once we focus on well-being. ”
Like I said, that’s not really the point—it also doesn’t meaningfully resolve that particular issue, because of course the whole dispute is whose well-being counts, with anti-abortion advocates claiming that human fetuses count and pro-abortion people claiming that human fetuses don’t.
I dunno, maybe I’m overly cautious, but I’m not fond of someone publishing a well-made and official-looking “based on EA principles, here’s who to vote for” document, since “EA principles” quite vary—I think if EA becomes seen as politically aligned (with either major US party) that constitutes a huge constraint on our movement’s potential.
You said the problem was stating it authoritatively rather than the actual conclusions, I made it sound less authoritative but now you’re saying that the actual conclusions matter. The document has sufficient disclaimers as it is, I mean the preface clearly says EAs could disagree. You don’t see Givewell writing “assuming that poverty is the #1 cause area, which EAs may disagree on” multiple times and I don’t treat politics with special reverence as if different rules should apply. I think there’s something unhealthy and self-reinforcing about tiptoeing around like that. The point here is to advertise a better set of implicit norms, so that maybe people (inside and outside EA) can finally treat political policy as just another question to answer rather than playing meta-games.
If I care about total well-being, then of course people who say that some people’s well being doesn’t count are going to be wrong. This includes the pro lifers, who care about the future well being of a particular fetus but not the future well being of any potential child (or not as much, at least).
Sorry, I perhaps wasn’t specific enough in my original reply. The “less authoritative” thing was meant to apply to the entire document, not just this one section—that’s why I also said I wasn’t sure documents like this are good for EA as a movement.
Strong disagree. Political policy in practice isn’t “just another question to answer”—maybe it should be, but that’s not the world we live in—and acting as if it is strikes me as risky.
In the preface I state that hedging language is minimized for the sake of readability.
Neither is poverty alleviation or veganism or anything else in practice.
Again, strong disagree—many things are not politicized and can be answered more directly. One of the main strengths of EA, in my view, is that it isn’t just another culture war position (yet?) - consider Robin Hanson’s points on “pulling the rope sideways”.
I think I’m losing track of the point. What does it mean to answer something “more directly”?
I’m not sure how that’s relevant here since I’m clearly saying that we’re not taking a position on abortion.
Just posting to acknowledge that I’ve seen this—my full reply will be long enough that I’m probably going to make it a separate post.