Empathy + Bias + Disagreements
What is empathy (in Bloom’s narrow sense)?
Feeling what you think others are feeling emotionally! Feeling bad when someone else feels bad!
What is a randomized controlled trial (RCT)?
A method for testing an intervention by randomly assigning people to a treatment group and a control group, so that the only difference between them is the intervention being tested.
What is Fred doing in the basement, and what is the analogous real-life behavior (on Norcross’s view)?
Fred is torturing puppies to produce a substance that enhances the taste of chocolate. Norcross analogizes his choice to the choices many of us make to purchase and consume factory farmed meat.
Why does Rippon think poor people would be harmed by having the option to sell their organs?
Because the option would create social and economic pressure to sell their organs, making them responsible for not using their bodies to solve financial problems and exposing them to pressure, blame or coercion
What is one major problem with empathy according to Bloom? (there are 2, just pick one!)
It is biased (e.g., favors some people over others)
OR
It is innumerate (often ignoring # of people affected)
According to William MacAskill, how does counterfactual thinking explain why becoming a doctor might not do the most good?
Because we should ask what would happen if you didn’t become a doctor—someone else would likely take that role (replaceability), so your impact is small. This is especially true in places where there are already many doctors. You might do more good by working in a role or location where your contribution is not easily replaced and has a greater impact.
What does it mean to be "speciesist"?
To believe that all members of a certain species have higher moral status simply because they belong to that species, regardless of individual abilities.
What does Radcliffe think is the real harm (as opposed to organ markets)?
Poverty!
What is the “identifiable victim effect”?
People feel more empathy and give more to a single identifiable person than to many statistical victims
According to Toby Ord, why is ignoring cost-effectiveness more than just a practical mistake?
(must explain what makes it more than just a practical mistake!)
Because it is a moral problem/failing: it means wasting resources and failing to help as many people as we could, resulting in preventable harm.
What is the difference between being a moral agent and a moral patient, and why does Norcross think this matters when it comes to animal welfare?
Moral agents can make moral decisions, while moral patients are beings who can be harmed or benefited. Norcross argues that animals are appropriate moral patients even if we grant that they’re not moral agents.
What is the Laissez-Choisir argument for allowing organ markets?
It is the argument that if people in poverty would choose to sell their organs, then selling must be their best available option. Therefore, preventing them from doing so makes them worse off and is a paternalistic restriction on their autonomy, so organ markets should be allowed.
What is myside bias?
The tendency to evaluate evidence and arguments in a way that favors our existing beliefs or side
What is the “100x multiplier,” and how does diminishing marginal utility explain it?
(must explain both!)
The 100x multiplier is the idea that the same amount of money can do about 100 times more good in the poorest parts of the world. This is explained by diminishing marginal utility: money is much more valuable when people lack basic needs, so each additional dollar produces far greater benefits for the very poor than for the wealthy
How does Norcross respond to the claim that individual consumers don’t make a difference to animal suffering? (2 responses, 1/2 = 1/2 points)
Answers:
1.Even if your action makes no difference, a morally decent person wouldn’t participate once they know the suffering involved (chocolate mousse example)
2. In fact, individual choices do make a difference in expected value terms. There’s some number of consumer meat reductions that would lower the amount purchased. You have a small chance of being that consumer, but when the reduction happens it’s significant. Say, a 1/10k chance of saving 250k chickens has an expected value of 25 chickens/year! (If avg consumer eats 25 chickens/year)
Give a (non-kidney-related) example in which you think you’re better off by having your set of options restricted.
Rippon’s examples:
A cashier is safer without access to the safe during a robbery
A union leader is in a stronger position without the option to concede in negotiations
More:
If unpaid internships didn’t exist, no pressure to accept them
A worker without overtime option avoids burnout pressure
A gambler does not have access to casinos
What does it mean to pass the "idealogical Turing Test?"
Being able to represent the opposing side in a way they endorse
100What are QALYs AND DALYs, and why are they needed?
QALYs (Quality-Adjusted Life Years) and DALYs (Disability-Adjusted Life Years) are standardized measures of health that combine length and quality of life. Quality Adjusted Life Years combine quality and quantity of life lived. 1 QALY = one year of life in perfect health.
They are needed because they allow us to compare the effectiveness of very different interventions (like treating different diseases) using a common metric, making it possible to assess cost-effectiveness and to make better-informed choices among interventions.
What is the “challenge of marginal cases?” What is it meant to show, according to Norcross?
The challenge of marginal cases is a response to those who claim that humans' "rationality" (and animals' lack thereof) justifies our difference in treatment.
However we define “rationality,” it’s going to be the case that some humans fall below that threshold (e.g., babies, people in comas, people with traumatic brain injuries or severe developmental disorders), and some animals fall above it (smart dolphins! chimps! remember our video!)
But most people think these ‘non-rational’ humans are still entitled to the same moral status as other humans
So rationality can’t be what justifies our different treatment of animals.
What does Radcliffe mean when she says “the imposition is of prohibition, not options”?
Rippon frames his argument as if we are "imposing the option" of selling a kidney on people. Radcliffe thinks that rhetorical choice implies that a market would be forcing some option on people that wasn't already there.
But Radcliffe is pointing out that the option to sell organs is the natural state of affairs, and people are already choosing it, so what is being imposed is actually the prohibition of that option—not the option itself.