Is your moral uncertainty considerable? What are your credences across moral views? It seems like if your credence in non-utilitarian views is very low, then small amounts of additional offsetting would overcome even large harms multiplied by the tiny chance that other moral views are true.
Also, are we sure that we want to make people very, very uncomfortable eating meat? Wouldn't that be bad from a net utility perspective, if everyone were suddenly much more troubled by their food and having to find new foods they liked while they switched to food they didn't? And wouldn't that only be effective once a meaningful majority of people switched to veganism, which probably won't happen in the near term (and is more likely to be swamped by artificial meat then changing people's attitudes)? It seems like empathy for animals could be very bad unless it's action-causing and that action is effective. Plus, people resist the idea that they're participating in an evil system, but feel good about giving to charity. Wouldn't campaigns to get people to donate to animal charities be far more likely to be effective than the two?
I give about 65% credence to realist utilitarianism. I think the utility gain of people no longer paying for horrific torture outweighs them being sad.
Damn, that’s far lower than I would’ve thought. I remember you said 70% once, has it actually decreased since then or there’s nothing in that and these are just rough figures?
That's lower than I'd have expected as well. How is the remaining 35% divvied up? Is it mostly various forms of deontology, some kind of anti-realism, a mix of these, etc.?
I have never declared myself the public authority to define what the social welfare optimum is for any given activity. I've merely claimed that if you do something severely immoral, you should offset it. Eating meat is, of course, very immoral, because it causes enormous amounts of suffering.
Also are you saying donating $100 dollars once is enough for your entire life?
Nvm I read the article u linked
Is your moral uncertainty considerable? What are your credences across moral views? It seems like if your credence in non-utilitarian views is very low, then small amounts of additional offsetting would overcome even large harms multiplied by the tiny chance that other moral views are true.
Also, are we sure that we want to make people very, very uncomfortable eating meat? Wouldn't that be bad from a net utility perspective, if everyone were suddenly much more troubled by their food and having to find new foods they liked while they switched to food they didn't? And wouldn't that only be effective once a meaningful majority of people switched to veganism, which probably won't happen in the near term (and is more likely to be swamped by artificial meat then changing people's attitudes)? It seems like empathy for animals could be very bad unless it's action-causing and that action is effective. Plus, people resist the idea that they're participating in an evil system, but feel good about giving to charity. Wouldn't campaigns to get people to donate to animal charities be far more likely to be effective than the two?
I give about 65% credence to realist utilitarianism. I think the utility gain of people no longer paying for horrific torture outweighs them being sad.
Damn, that’s far lower than I would’ve thought. I remember you said 70% once, has it actually decreased since then or there’s nothing in that and these are just rough figures?
I think I've been consistent around 65%.
That's lower than I'd have expected as well. How is the remaining 35% divvied up? Is it mostly various forms of deontology, some kind of anti-realism, a mix of these, etc.?
I have never declared myself the public authority to define what the social welfare optimum is for any given activity. I've merely claimed that if you do something severely immoral, you should offset it. Eating meat is, of course, very immoral, because it causes enormous amounts of suffering.
Lol
Lol
I do not find myself wondering that, thanks for the advice though! Will consult iff I ever find myself wondering that!