Ask the counter-question: what do you plan to do once you’ve settled to your satisfaction the struggle between moral concern X and moral concern Y? Have you known yourself to change your behavior after settling such issues?
Of course! I have to change my behavior to be in accord with my new-found knowledge about my preferences. A current area of moral uncertainty for me revolves around the ethics of eating meat, which is motivating me to do research on the intelligence of various animals. As a result, the bulk of my meat consumption has shifted from more intelligent/empathetic animals (pigs) to less intelligent animals (shrimp, fish, chicken).
Through discussion, I’ve also influenced some friends into having more socially liberal views, thus changing the nature of their interpersonal interactions. If optimizing charity was the question that people focused on, we would still end up having the discussion about whether or not the charity should provide abortions, contraceptives, etc.
You can’t escape discussing the fundamental moral questions if those moral struggles create disagreement about which action should be taken.
I agree that people have different opinions about the relative value of different moral concerns. What I’m pessimistic about is the value of discussing those differences by focusing on questions like the examples I gave.
I do think that it might be better to focus on the underlying moral values rather than the specific examples.
If optimizing charity was the question that people focused on, we would still end up having the discussion about whether or not the charity should provide abortions, contraceptives, etc.
Since GiveWell hasn’t found any good charities that provide abortions and give out contraceptives the answer in this community is probably: “No, charity shouldn’t do those things.”
That’s however a very different discussion from mainstream US discussion over the status of abortion.
Since GiveWell hasn’t found any good charities that provide abortions and give out contraceptives the answer in this community is probably: “No, charity shouldn’t do those things.”
Did an ‘is’ just morph into a ‘should’ there somehow?
Since GiveWell hasn’t found any good charities that provide abortions and give out contraceptives the answer in this community is probably: “No, charity shouldn’t do those things.”
Or “There is not an existing charity which does those things well enough to donate towards.”
“Givewell hasn’t found any good charities that do X” does not imply “Charity should not do X”
Qiaochu_Yuan’s argument was that debates over abortion are privileged questions (discussed disproportionately to the value of answering them).
I added that while this is true in regards to the specific nature of the questions, the underlying moral uncertainty that the questions represent (faced by the US population—lesswrong is pretty settled here) is one that is valuable to discuss for the population at large because it effects how they behave.
Givewell isn’t worrying about moral uncertainty—they’ve already settled approximately on utilitarianism. Not so for the rest of the population.
Of course! I have to change my behavior to be in accord with my new-found knowledge about my preferences. A current area of moral uncertainty for me revolves around the ethics of eating meat, which is motivating me to do research on the intelligence of various animals. As a result, the bulk of my meat consumption has shifted from more intelligent/empathetic animals (pigs) to less intelligent animals (shrimp, fish, chicken).
Through discussion, I’ve also influenced some friends into having more socially liberal views, thus changing the nature of their interpersonal interactions. If optimizing charity was the question that people focused on, we would still end up having the discussion about whether or not the charity should provide abortions, contraceptives, etc.
You can’t escape discussing the fundamental moral questions if those moral struggles create disagreement about which action should be taken.
I do think that it might be better to focus on the underlying moral values rather than the specific examples.
Cool. I’ve been having second thoughts about eating pigs as well.
They don’t seem to pass the mirror test (which has been my criteria for such things, even if flawed).
Since GiveWell hasn’t found any good charities that provide abortions and give out contraceptives the answer in this community is probably: “No, charity shouldn’t do those things.”
That’s however a very different discussion from mainstream US discussion over the status of abortion.
Did an ‘is’ just morph into a ‘should’ there somehow?
Or “There is not an existing charity which does those things well enough to donate towards.”
“Givewell hasn’t found any good charities that do X” does not imply “Charity should not do X”
We are talking about the mainstream US here.
Qiaochu_Yuan’s argument was that debates over abortion are privileged questions (discussed disproportionately to the value of answering them).
I added that while this is true in regards to the specific nature of the questions, the underlying moral uncertainty that the questions represent (faced by the US population—lesswrong is pretty settled here) is one that is valuable to discuss for the population at large because it effects how they behave.
Givewell isn’t worrying about moral uncertainty—they’ve already settled approximately on utilitarianism. Not so for the rest of the population.