I’m an ethical (still moderate) vegetarian, and I give my fair (for now too small) monthly share to SCI. I also happen to give a small amount to animal charities (annual subscription fees) and I adopted a stray cat. This would make me sort of an animal friend, as well as someone contributing to human welfare. But this may not be the most cost-effective way to do so, or so it seems.

Yet I feel concerned that I have to give some weight to animals because of the certainty that, if no one does, then this will considerably increase the amount of their suffering. Some animal charities do a fairly nice job of making people aware of the harms animals suffer as a result of our living. And such living includes experimenting on them in order to improve human wellbeing. This seems to show that calculations may be much more complicated than it seems once you take that into account.

As someone who is concerned with the fate of all, I am truly concerned that I’m contributing to harm non-humans by willingly contributing to save human lives.

I personally agree with the basic idea that, all else equal, it’s much better to help a human than to help an animal. However, I do not agree with the words above: “giving to charities that help animals effects almost no good.” I place value on the welfare of animals, and I would be interested in giving money to improve their lives - if I didn’t feel (as I currently do, though this is open to revision) that there are humans who can be helped as significantly and as cheaply.

I also disagree with the general “black-and-white” presentation of the post. I think that my viewpoint on humans vs. animals is a judgment call and a philosophical issue, and reasonable people can strongly disagree. We do eventually want to cover animal welfare charities and help donors who have different philosophical priorities from ours.

A few things explain the difference between the sentiments I’m expressing here and the sentiments Elie expressed in the post:

1. The blog’s general tone. This was one of the first posts ever on the blog, and in the early days of the blog we were largely “having fun with it,” using hyperbole among other things. Though I don’t remember for sure, I doubt that either Elie or I ever placed no value on animal welfare.
2. I’ve also increased the weight I put on animal welfare, simply because other people I respect feel strongly about it and I largely see their viewpoint vs. mine as a philosophical question and somewhat of a toss-up.
3. Me vs. Elie. I think I put more weight on animal welfare. However, he agrees with me that “giving to charities that help animals effects almost no good” is an overstatement and that the confidence level / “black and white” tone of this post is excessive.

“In case anyone forgot, we eat animals; we use them for hard labor; we keep them as pets. We don’t generally assign animals the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Why? Because they’re animals.”

..I support animal welfare organizations to help protect animals from the abuse and exploitation that so many rationalize “because they are animals”. Animals experience fear and pain and in most cases have no means to protect themselves against the suffering humans inflict upon them. Just because “we don’t generally assign animals the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” doesn’t mean we shouldn’t. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have not always been rights assigned to people viewed as “less than” and just because that was (or is) so did not make it right. I am not saying we should all become vegan and set all animals free in the streets, I am saying we have a long ways to go in terms of taking care of people and animals and I am thankful for the charities that do a good job of either. Elie’s statement that “giving to charities that help animals effects almost no good” and Givewell’s lack of evaluation of animal welfare charities undermine the credibility and usefulness of this website and organization, in my opinion.

I have respect for GiveWell to the point of intimidation because of your no-nonsense incisive approach. In spite of that, your view on this topic reminds me of a poet’s description of a certain philosopher as having “a stainless steel mind.”

On Vegan Outreach, there are no hard studies, but I think anecdotal evidence supports the suggestion that promoting vegetarianism is highly cost-effective. Promoting in vitro meat could also be quite efficient, though I haven’t seen specific calculations.

…

Esso regles officielles du poker poker play money texas holdem france poker on line poker flash on line…