Many global health interventions plausibly have negative effects on animal welfare (e.g., increasing factory farming). The inverse doesn't seem as true.

Due to their neglectedness (and the lack of animal participation in markets) animal interventions are also probably more efficient at converting $$ -> utils

This post pushed me to write a letter. Thanks!

I was imagining you could use the tools to assess people's views about cause prioritization! In particular, I'm not sure whether you record users' responses when they use either tool, but I'd be interested in seeing these data. It may also be valuable to recruit a more representative sample to see how most people react to moral uncertainty or otherwise engage with the tools.

Of course, I think a limitation in both these cases is that most people are pretty unfamiliar with moral uncertainty, and so a) probably a lot of people who use both tools are simply testing assumptions out and not necessarily expressing their true views, and b) I'm not sure whether recruiting people without a philosophical background would yield high-quality data. These might mean it's not worth the effort, but I'm curious what the team's thoughts are!

Do you plan to conduct empirical work on either of the tools you've released recently? Interested to hear any reasons you think this would or wouldn't be especially valuable!

For future debate weeks, it might be nice if we could select comments that changed our view! I often find comments more informative than posts. 

Agree with everything here.

But the argument isn’t that people should spend the money they’d otherwise donate to charity on themselves/flying business class, it’s that they should use it to further whatever their particular path to impact is.