So I think this would be a better summary of the article :
```
The text discusses several key points:
1.Many people in the effective altruism (EA) community follow different types of utilitarianism as their personal “ambitious moralities” for making the world better.
2.The author distinguishes between “utilitarianism as a personal goal” versus utilitarianism as the single true morality everyone must adopt.
3.”Minimal morality” is about respecting others’ life goals, separate from one’s “ambitious morality.”
4.Judging which ambitious morality is better is not necessarily negligible since they can give quite different recommendations for how to act.
5.However, people should approach their personal moral views differently if they see them as subjective rather than objective.
6.The author uses an analogy with political parties (Democrats vs. Republicans) to illustrate respecting others’ moral views while still advocating for one’s own.
7.”Minimal morality” is analogous to respecting the overarching democratic process, despite having different ambitious political goals.
In summary, the text argues for a pluralistic view where people can have different utilitarian “ambitious moralities” as personal goals, while still respecting a shared “minimal morality” of not imposing their view on others or acting in ways harmful to others’ moral pursuits.
```
Please let me know if this is condensed enough while still answering all relevant parts of the article.
I feel that this is an interesting question.
In general, one uncomfortable realization that I feel I am approaching is kind of misanthropic.
More than 100 billion animals are killed for meat and other animal products every year.
Considering there is 8 billion humans, if there was a hypothetical example where pressing a button would destroy the whole world (or even just humanity) would that be preferable compared to the suffering of factory farmed animals?
I know commonly animal welfare is put in a lower basis compared to human welfare.
However, considering the sheer amount of animal suffering in factory farms, does it not outweigh the total amount of human flourishing?
Without meaning to sound like an eco-terrorist, considering the amount of suffering one person that eats meat can do to animals, should murdering a meat eater be considered “ethical”?
I feel like these are important questions to answer and depending on your answer to these questions, can probably determine what to focus (whether animal based ethics, or human improvement).