Vegans believe that they should follow a deontological rule, to never eat meat, rather than weighing the costs and benefits of individual food choices. They don’t consume meat even when it is expensive (in various senses) to not do so. And they advocate for others to commit to doing likewise.
Whereas EA thinking in other areas instead says to do the math.
Minor nit: following strict rules without weighing the costs and benefits each time could be motivated by rule utilitarianism, not only by deontology. It could also be motivated by act utilitarianism, if you deem that weighing the costs and benefits every single time would not be worth it. (Though I don’t think EA veganism is often motivated by act utilitarianism).
I’m a vegetarian and I consider my policy of not frequently recalculating the cost/benefit of eating meat to be an application of a rule in two-level utilitarianism, not a deontological rule. (I do pressure test the calculation periodically.)
Also I will note you are making some pretty strong generalizations here. I know vegans who cheat, vegans who are flexible, vegans who are strict.
I think a small share of EAs would do the math before deciding whether or not to commit fraud or murder, or otherwise cause/risk involuntary harm to other people, and instead just rule it out immediately or never consider such options in the first place. Maybe that’s a low bar, because the math is too obvious to do?
What other important ways would you want (or make sense for) EAs to be more deontological? More commitment to transparency and against PR?
I think a small share of EAs would do the math before deciding whether or not to commit fraud or murder, or otherwise cause/risk involuntary harm to other people, and instead just rule it out immediately or never consider such options in the first place.
Ah come on. I am tempted to say “You’re not a true Effective Altruist unless you’ve at least done the math.” Rigorously questioning the foundations of strong moral rules like this one is surely a central part of being an ethical person.
Countries do murder all of the time in wars and by police. Should you be pushing really hard to get to an equilibrium where that isn’t okay? There are boundaries here and you actually have to figure out which ones are right and which ones are wrong. What are the results of such policies? Do they net improve or hurt people? These are important questions to ask and do factor into my decisions, at least.
Many countries have very different laws around what level of violence you’re allowed to use to protect yourself from someone entering your property (like a robber). You can’t just defer to “no murder”, I do think you have to figure out for yourself what’s right and wrong in this scenario. And there’s math involved, as well as deontology.
I think that’s true, but also pretty much the same as what many or most veg or reducetarian EAs did when they decided what diet to follow (and other non-food animal products to avoid), including what exceptions to allow. If the consideration of why not to murder counts as involving math, so does veganism for many or most EAs, contrary to Zvi’s claim. Maybe some considered too few options or possible exceptions ahead of time, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t do any math.
This is also basically how I imagine rule consequentialism to work: you decide what rules to follow ahead of time, including prespecified exceptions, based on math. And then you follow the rules. You don’t redo the math for each somewhat unique decision you might face, except possibly very big infrequent decisions, like your career or big donations. You don’t change your rule or make a new exception right in the situation where the rule would apply, e.g. a vegan at a restaurant, someone’s house or a grocery store. If you change or break your rules too easily, you undermine your own ability to follow rules you set for yourself.
But also, EA is compatible with the impermissibility of instrumental harm regardless of how the math turns out (although I have almost no sympathy for absolutist deontological views). AFAIK, deontologists, including absolutist deontologists, can defend killing in self-defense without math and also think it’s better to do more good than less, all else equal.
Can you explain what you mean by the second half of that sentence?
Vegans believe that they should follow a deontological rule, to never eat meat, rather than weighing the costs and benefits of individual food choices. They don’t consume meat even when it is expensive (in various senses) to not do so. And they advocate for others to commit to doing likewise.
Whereas EA thinking in other areas instead says to do the math.
Minor nit: following strict rules without weighing the costs and benefits each time could be motivated by rule utilitarianism, not only by deontology. It could also be motivated by act utilitarianism, if you deem that weighing the costs and benefits every single time would not be worth it. (Though I don’t think EA veganism is often motivated by act utilitarianism).
I’m a vegetarian and I consider my policy of not frequently recalculating the cost/benefit of eating meat to be an application of a rule in two-level utilitarianism, not a deontological rule. (I do pressure test the calculation periodically.)
Also I will note you are making some pretty strong generalizations here. I know vegans who cheat, vegans who are flexible, vegans who are strict.
I think a small share of EAs would do the math before deciding whether or not to commit fraud or murder, or otherwise cause/risk involuntary harm to other people, and instead just rule it out immediately or never consider such options in the first place. Maybe that’s a low bar, because the math is too obvious to do?
What other important ways would you want (or make sense for) EAs to be more deontological? More commitment to transparency and against PR?
Ah come on. I am tempted to say “You’re not a true Effective Altruist unless you’ve at least done the math.” Rigorously questioning the foundations of strong moral rules like this one is surely a central part of being an ethical person.
Countries do murder all of the time in wars and by police. Should you be pushing really hard to get to an equilibrium where that isn’t okay? There are boundaries here and you actually have to figure out which ones are right and which ones are wrong. What are the results of such policies? Do they net improve or hurt people? These are important questions to ask and do factor into my decisions, at least.
Many countries have very different laws around what level of violence you’re allowed to use to protect yourself from someone entering your property (like a robber). You can’t just defer to “no murder”, I do think you have to figure out for yourself what’s right and wrong in this scenario. And there’s math involved, as well as deontology.
I think that’s true, but also pretty much the same as what many or most veg or reducetarian EAs did when they decided what diet to follow (and other non-food animal products to avoid), including what exceptions to allow. If the consideration of why not to murder counts as involving math, so does veganism for many or most EAs, contrary to Zvi’s claim. Maybe some considered too few options or possible exceptions ahead of time, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t do any math.
This is also basically how I imagine rule consequentialism to work: you decide what rules to follow ahead of time, including prespecified exceptions, based on math. And then you follow the rules. You don’t redo the math for each somewhat unique decision you might face, except possibly very big infrequent decisions, like your career or big donations. You don’t change your rule or make a new exception right in the situation where the rule would apply, e.g. a vegan at a restaurant, someone’s house or a grocery store. If you change or break your rules too easily, you undermine your own ability to follow rules you set for yourself.
But also, EA is compatible with the impermissibility of instrumental harm regardless of how the math turns out (although I have almost no sympathy for absolutist deontological views). AFAIK, deontologists, including absolutist deontologists, can defend killing in self-defense without math and also think it’s better to do more good than less, all else equal.