While Kant's ethics doesn't logically reduce to consequentialism, the categorical imperative seems to rest on assumptions about long-term outcomes. Kant's insistence on a universal prohibition against lying appears grounded in the belief that a strict norm of truth-telling creates a more stable and morally reliable society, even if it leads to worse outcomes in rare cases. So while consequences aren't the explicit justification, they seem to determine the principles we find reasonable and can will to become a universal law.

Parfit's distinction between agent-neutral aims (e.g. maximise happiness) and agent-relative aims (e.g. care for your family) strikes me as more semantic than substantive. All moral reasoning depends on the agent's situation, and identity (like being a parent) can be viewed as part of that situation. Take Peter Singer's drowning child for example: the moral responsibility to act arises because you are standing there and you can save the child. That situational fact is decisive, much like being a parent is. In this sense, even utilitarianism relies on agent-specific facts, making it functionally agent-relative. I'm not sure any moral theory is truly agent-neutral in practice.

Hi everyone! Due to absences during the holiday season we have decided to skip this month's Effective Animal Advocacy Meetup. We look forward to seeing you again next time in August. :)

Hi Danny, I am really sorry to hear that you had trouble finding the location. The meetup took place as planned. The venue has a glass wall through which everyone inside is visible, along with a large sign above the door that reads "ProVeg Incubator". It appears you were at the wrong entrance. I warmly encourage you to join us for the next meetup. Should you have any difficulties finding the location in the future, please don't hesitate to reach out in our Telegram group.

Hi Lucas, it is more of a dinner than snacks so it should be fine to not eat beforehand. Also, we will make sure there are no nuts in the food except for almonds. :)

Hi everyone! Due to the low number of sign-ups we have decided to skip this month's Effective Animal Advocacy Meetup. We look forward to seeing you again next time in August. :)

To me, this seems like a classical case of treating symptoms instead of root causes. By preventing the birth of meat consumers we reduce the consumption of meat, yet we do not address the root cause of a dysfunctional food system. Focussing on food system change may be less effective in the short-run (at least in this concrete example). In the long-run however, as food choices shift towards plant-based options, animal suffering caused by food consumption will decrease continuously and may ultimately drop to zero. This can only be achieved through systemic change.