love it
sammyboiz
Karma: 278
I know that you state this as a reason that has not been addressed so your argument is probably not your main argument. But if you are using this as a main reason for going vegan, I feel like it misses the point. Maybe going vegan yourself makes it 20% easier for the next person to go vegan. That is still nowhere near the cost-effectiveness/effort-effectiveness of donating to animal welfare since the one estimate I listed was $1000 to offset a lifetime of veganism.
My question for you is why do you promote AW donation AND veganism. Do you think you can increase your EU by only advocating for AW donations? Do you care that others abide by deontological side-contraints?
Are people here against killing one to save two in a vacuum? I thought EA was very utilitarian. I think intuitively, causing harm is repulsive but ultimately, our goal should be creating a better world.
To your “animal” to “human” swap, it’s hard to give “would you kill/eat humans if you could offset” as an double standard since most self-proclaimed utilitarians are still intuitively repulsed to immoral behavior like causing harm to humans, cannibalism, etc. On the other hand, we are biologically programmed to not care when eating animal flesh, even if we deem animal suffering immoral. What this means is that I would be way to horrified to offset killing or eating a human even if I deem it moral. On the other hand, I can offset eating an animal because I don’t intuitively care about the harm I caused. I am too disconnected, biologically preprogrammed, and cognitively dissonant. Therefore, offsetting animal suffering is not repulsive nor immoral to me.
Two of your reasons to go vegan involve getting to tell others you are vegan. I find this pretty dishonest because I assume you aren’t telling them this.
So if they ask you, “why are you vegan?”, your honest answer would be “because I need you to accept me as a non-hypocrite.”????? I don’t think vegans would give you any extra consideration if they knew this was your reasoning. Any other reason you give would be dishonest and misleading.
[Question] Question about deontology
I see, so an EA deontologist would be an EA with a deontological side-constraint and who is otherwise utilitarian with his positive impact.
Im confused what other goal there is beside the maximization of expected utility.
As for being exclusive, I argue that effort needs to be prioritized according to importance.
Deontology can’t help you differentiate between charities or impactful careers. Only utilitarianism can, right?
I don’t know man, virtue signaling to non-vegans and vegans that you care about animals can be done simply by telling people you donate 10% of your money to animal welfare. It doesn’t take much more than that. Utilitarianism can be explained.
As for lowering cognitive dissonance, this is an extremely person to person thing. I would never prescribe veganism to an EA with this reasoning. And this this was a common reason, why haven’t I also been told to have a pet/animal companion to increase how much moral worth I give animals?
And reducing daily suffering that you cause can also be done better with an extra 10 cents or so. Wouldn’t this be more in accordance with your values? Surely 10 cents is also cheaper than veganism.
Sorry if I sound attacking.
We are imperfect and we need to prioritize the most important actions to reduce suffering. We don’t have infinite energy. A lifetime of veganism is difficult. Making or saving $1000 is comparatively not.
I am not maximally EA and I assume you aren’t either. (In the sense that we aren’t spending every living second trying to generate impact). We both have some level of commitment towards altruism that we are willing to put in. I believe that spending effort to be vegan has a cost, if I spent that time making more money, I could do more for the world. Therefore yes, my taste is more important the life of the an animal.
I can ask you a similar question: Do you believe spending time on your hobby yesterday is more valuable than the life of the animals that you could have saved?
As for pollution, I can say that my commute is more important that the impact of my emissions because I can outweigh my suffering caused through donations.
I believe that honesty and acting according to your values is more important. If your value is EU maximization, then your actions and opinion should reflect that. I didn’t appreciate that I learned veganism through EA only to discover that it may be an order of magnitude less effective than animal welfare donations. I think EAs should also not forget they need to signal to each other. I think many EAs have been given the message “go vegan to reduce suffering,” but not “animal welfare is the most effective way to help animals.”
I put this one back up and took the other one down. Thx
My Problem with Veganism and Deontology
Thank you for noticing, I wouldn’t have lol.
Your reasoning is solid to me. great response.