Henry Stanley 🔸
Posts 15
Comments167
I'm still skeptical of using 'obviousness'/'plausibility' as evidence of a theory being correct - as a mental move it risks proving too much. Multiple theories might have equally obvious implications. Plenty of previously-unthinkable views would have been seen to be deeply un-obvious.
You have your intuitions and I have mine - we can each say they're obvious to us and it gets us no further, surely? Perhaps I'm being dense.
In Don't Valorize The Void you say:
Omelas is a very good place, and it's deeply irrational to condemn it. We can demonstrate this by noting that from behind a veil of ignorance, where you had an equal chance to be any affected individual (including the kid in the basement), it would be prudent to gamble on Omelas.
If it was so straightforwardly irrational (dare I say it - insensible), Le Guin would presumably never have written the story in the first place! Not everyone behind the veil of ignorance would take the gamble, despite the naked assertion that 'it would be prudent' to do so.
This got added as a comment on the original Substack article; think it's worth reading in this context:
https://expandingcircle.substack.com/p/the-dark-side-of-pet-ownership
Not what I was saying. More like, it’s a weak argument to merely say “my position generates a sensible-sounding conclusion and thus is more likely to be true”, and it would surprise me if eg a highly-upvoted EA Forum post used this kind of circular reasoning. Or is that what you’re defending?
I suppose I agree that we’re not obliged to give every crackpot view equal airtime - I just disagree that “pets have net negative lives” is such a view.
I think the “pathology” comment is probably a norm violation. The “sensible” comment feels more like circular reasoning I guess? (Or maybe it doesn’t feel obvious to me, and perhaps therefore it irks me more than it does others.)
Although they're presented in adjacent sentences, this:
I’d say that domesticated life seems both (i) clearly good overall, and (ii) the best form of life that’s realistically available for many non-human animals.
seems distinct from:
(I know I’d much rather be reincarnated as a well-cared-for companion animal than as a starving, parasite-ridden stray. Yeah, even at the cost of a minute spent tied to a lamppost!)
I would also prefer to be a companion animal over being a stray – but I would probably prefer not to exist than exist as a companion animal.
Needless to say I don't think companion animal lives are "clearly" good overall. I think "a minute tied to a lamppost" is a bit sanguine. Companion animals are subjected to all sorts of unpleasant experiences: surgeries like neutering/spaying, boredom, lack of autonomy over basic functions and routine, confinement, breeding-related health issues.
I suspect this varies a lot - e.g. I think rabbits probably have overall net negative lives, being prey animals and often neglected, kept in cages outside with little to do, fear from predators, unable to perform their natural habits. Cats and dogs probably have a better time.
I tend to agree; better to be explicit especially as the information is public knowledge anyway.
It refers to this: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/HqKnreqC3EFF9YcEs/
This is wonderful – thank you so much for writing it.
Agree about secular, single-purpose communities – but I'm not sure EA is quite the same.
I've found my relationships with other EAs tend to blossom to be about more than just EA; those principles provide a good set of shared values from which to build other things, like a sense of community, shared houses, group meals, playing music together and just supporting each other generally. Then again, I don't consider EA to be the core of my identity, so YMMV.