I read this article, felt emotional disgust at the argument and wondered why? I don't really want to hurt shrimp, so why am I so viscerally against helping them?
This article is an exploration of my explanation to myself. I’m super happy to get feedback and discuss.
My core argument against the general thrust of the article is that shrimp have no moral weight and so their suffering is irrelevant. I think this article is mildly problematic, spreading confused thinking about what is important in the world and diverting resources from more valuable problems to solve.
I also think that this topic is not actually simple and it is very reductionist to make the case “Pain is bad because it hurts”. Sure it's bad for the sufferer, but that's not very helpful in deciding what the “right” course of action is.
It has however prompted quite a bit of very enjoyable research into morality 🙂.
Conclusion
The default position on any topic should be inaction, we do not hold the resource to complete all possible actions and so must prioritize. Moral weight is one way.
Suffering is a negative thing for those affected and should be alleviated if resources are available and the cost of doing so is balanced with the moral weight of the suffering entity.
The Shrimp are suffering, but hold zero moral weight due to total lack of contribution. Inaction is recommended.
Morality
My understanding of morality is that it is
Situational - the level of pro-social action you can perform depends on your available resources and so what is “right” changes.
Grey scale - level of impact on a society changes an entity's moral weight rather than specific criteria leading to inclusion within the boundaries of a moral circle
Not absolute - It is an idea set in the marketplace of ideas like any other, each individual has a version roughly aligned with their society and the societies master set is a kind of average of its members beliefs.
A social technology - its purpose is to convince the individual to be pro - social even when it is negative for the individual. This friction of interests creates a permanent tension within all societies, this can be a source of change.
Individual entities (animals / plants / fictional characters included) have different moral weight depending on their level of impact to the society they are part of. Meritocracy, those who contribute deserve greater consideration, but only up to like 1.2 of your average society member.
Overall better for the individual to follow in the longer term due to the rewards of others pro - social actions even if it's not utility maxing for the individual in all specific scenarios.
Required to form a stable society
Not relevant if you are truly alone and always expect to be (big sad for you)
After digging into it a bit, I found that my understanding is quite similar to that espoused by Thomas Hobbes
“Rational actors approach”
The “rational actors approach” to morality would be to:
Teach others to act morally in order to reap the pro - social benefits they provide
Appear moral to maintain social standing
Secretly act immorally when beneficial and consequence-free
Yet this does not work in practice - people who try the “rational actors approach” tend to:
Be ineffective teachers of morality (people are almost magically good at picking true motives)
AND
Get caught and so become obvious sociopaths (reducing their social effectiveness)
OR
Develop genuine internalized morality (because maintaining cognitive dissonance is costly)
Empathy
I define empathy as the ability to:
Understand/recognize others' emotional states (cognitive empathy)
Share or mirror those emotional states (affective / compassionate empathy)
These abilities are very useful to promote enable group cooperation by
Enable prediction of others' actions
Motivation to help group members
In my opinion this gets misapplied to low moral weight entities such as non-useful animals / plants / rocks / cartoon characters / imaginary friends etc. This often results in a falsely inflated moral weight for those entities and so misallocated resources.
The moral weight of future generations, the disabled, sick and aged.
One criticism of my view of things is that it does not, on a surface level, explain why an individual would care for those humans who are not very useful. I would claim that it does for the following simple reason:
You cannot have different moralities at the same time, your position must be consistent in order to be taught effectively.
Your morality will be echoed by those around you
So if you expect your own parents to care for you, you must care for your children (and you know your children will care for their own children, so by induction you care about future generations). If you expect to be cared for when / if you are old or become disabled or sick then you must care for the old now.
If you can reasonably expect to find yourself in a less optimal pair of shoes, you should assign additional moral weight to the people currently wearing them.
Atrocities and bigotry.
Does this view of morality justify some of the absolutely horrendous things that have been done in the past?
Yes. I'm super glad we live in abundance and will work the rest of my life to try to keep us in that state.
The past is a different circumstance, often without the abundance we now enjoy. In a zero sum game the suffering / death of a person from your outgroup / outside your knowledge is actively good for you and your society and so good in a moral sense. Thankfully in the present day this is no longer the case, we live in an abundant / positive sum era.
I wish every human on the planet success, knowing that if they do better so will I.
Does it justify bigotry? Yes, but I think it lowers the longevity of the society that has bigotry as a “feature” in it’s moral system.
Bigotry could be seen as a part of an individual person's morality and so justified in that way. If an entire society thought that way that would lower the moral weight of the targeted group in their eyes.
However it is a falsely lowered weight, the people targeted contribute (or would if allowed) to the society they are part of. Hating and hurting a part of your own society (in a positive sum game) is an excellent example of cutting off the nose to spite the face.
I think that evolutionary pressures (memetic) will correct the mistaken attitudes in time (as long as we stay abundant).
I read this article, felt emotional disgust at the argument and wondered why? I don't really want to hurt shrimp, so why am I so viscerally against helping them?
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/6bpQTtzfZTmLaJADJ/rebutting-every-objection-to-giving-to-the-shrimp-welfare
This article is an exploration of my explanation to myself. I’m super happy to get feedback and discuss.
My core argument against the general thrust of the article is that shrimp have no moral weight and so their suffering is irrelevant. I think this article is mildly problematic, spreading confused thinking about what is important in the world and diverting resources from more valuable problems to solve.
I also think that this topic is not actually simple and it is very reductionist to make the case “Pain is bad because it hurts”. Sure it's bad for the sufferer, but that's not very helpful in deciding what the “right” course of action is.
It has however prompted quite a bit of very enjoyable research into morality 🙂.
Conclusion
The default position on any topic should be inaction, we do not hold the resource to complete all possible actions and so must prioritize. Moral weight is one way.
Suffering is a negative thing for those affected and should be alleviated if resources are available and the cost of doing so is balanced with the moral weight of the suffering entity.
The Shrimp are suffering, but hold zero moral weight due to total lack of contribution. Inaction is recommended.
Morality
My understanding of morality is that it is
“Rational actors approach”
The “rational actors approach” to morality would be to:
Yet this does not work in practice - people who try the “rational actors approach” tend to:
AND
OR
Empathy
I define empathy as the ability to:
These abilities are very useful to promote enable group cooperation by
In my opinion this gets misapplied to low moral weight entities such as non-useful animals / plants / rocks / cartoon characters / imaginary friends etc. This often results in a falsely inflated moral weight for those entities and so misallocated resources.
The moral weight of future generations, the disabled, sick and aged.
One criticism of my view of things is that it does not, on a surface level, explain why an individual would care for those humans who are not very useful. I would claim that it does for the following simple reason:
So if you expect your own parents to care for you, you must care for your children (and you know your children will care for their own children, so by induction you care about future generations). If you expect to be cared for when / if you are old or become disabled or sick then you must care for the old now.
If you can reasonably expect to find yourself in a less optimal pair of shoes, you should assign additional moral weight to the people currently wearing them.
Atrocities and bigotry.
Does this view of morality justify some of the absolutely horrendous things that have been done in the past?
Yes. I'm super glad we live in abundance and will work the rest of my life to try to keep us in that state.
The past is a different circumstance, often without the abundance we now enjoy. In a zero sum game the suffering / death of a person from your outgroup / outside your knowledge is actively good for you and your society and so good in a moral sense. Thankfully in the present day this is no longer the case, we live in an abundant / positive sum era.
I wish every human on the planet success, knowing that if they do better so will I.
Does it justify bigotry? Yes, but I think it lowers the longevity of the society that has bigotry as a “feature” in it’s moral system.
Bigotry could be seen as a part of an individual person's morality and so justified in that way. If an entire society thought that way that would lower the moral weight of the targeted group in their eyes.
However it is a falsely lowered weight, the people targeted contribute (or would if allowed) to the society they are part of. Hating and hurting a part of your own society (in a positive sum game) is an excellent example of cutting off the nose to spite the face.
I think that evolutionary pressures (memetic) will correct the mistaken attitudes in time (as long as we stay abundant).