You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

FrameBenignly comments on When should an Effective Altruist be vegetarian? - Less Wrong Discussion

27 Post author: KatjaGrace 23 November 2014 05:25AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (81)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: FrameBenignly 24 November 2014 02:06:49PM 1 point [-]

Yes, but that sort of thinking is only really useful if you're trying to maintain neutral-utility at the lowest cost. It's not what most would aspire to. That's not even utilitarianism really; it's just the closest thing I could think of.

Comment author: DanielLC 24 November 2014 10:16:57PM 1 point [-]

It's useful if you're trying to maintain X utility at the lowest cost for any X. It's also useful if you're trying to maximize utility at a given cost Y. If you only have a finite amount of money, it's useful.

Comment author: RowanE 24 November 2014 03:56:58PM -1 points [-]

One might be deciding to increase the amount of utility they're adding, and deciding between vegetarianism and donating more money to effective charities than they were already giving. The limit is how hard it is for the altruist to do each of those things, so if they find giving the amount to achieve an equivalent amount of good to going vegan is less painful than for them to go vegan, they should do that. Caring the amount a utilitarian "should" is enough to grind most people to dust (I, personally, faced an opposite issue of looking at the problem and immediately giving up on morality and becoming functionally an egoist).

Comment author: FrameBenignly 24 November 2014 04:23:28PM 0 points [-]

Fair enough. I retract the first sentence of point 3.