We need to keep in mind that we are effective altruists (or effective anything) to the extent that we are also respected members of our communities, not only of the EA community. We live in a world in which meat-eaters are much of the population. In this kind of world, the belief that the life of a meat-eater life has a net negative value would turn us into a cult of phanatic monsters. Or at least we would be perceived in this way. We would have no chance whatsoever of contributing to the end of cruelty. We need to stay humans, connected to all kinds of humans. The quantitative approach to morality is powerful, one of the best ideas I can think of. But it’s not the only tool we should use.
gianca
Karma: −5
Beautifully explained. I see two possible directions for further development:
Relativity and quantum mechanics suggest that physical reality is fundamentally different from any intuitive model we can construct. Does this challenge any of the article’s assumptions on the relation between reality and philosophy? Spoiler alert: I don’t think so, but there are a couple of issues worth addressing.
I agree that morality involves understanding consequences and acting to produce beneficial outcomes. The open question remains: to what extent is “beneficial” subjective versus objective?