MichaelExe

What are your thoughts on animals suffering in the wild? Does it seem hopeless to try to help? It think we could certainly help many, so it may not be pointless, but it doesn't look like a problem we'll ever make a dent in. Just the issue of predation alone is huge. Should we stop a lion from killing a gazelle?

EDIT: there's a comment of his on this topic here (although from 1973).

I think some specific examples with explanation would really help. What statements about animal rights to which facts don't apply are you talking about?

Would you say facts don't apply to human rights (beyond human welfare), especially the right to freedom from slavery and forced labour, and the right to life? What's different for other animals?

Do you believe suffering is all that matters to other animals? An animal can be worse off, without necessarily suffering for it, e.g. cows often prefer some time at pasture, but not necessarily all of their time outside. Dogs might lose their toys and be worse off for it. Do you believe other animals are not worse off for being killed? Is it different for people? What makes murder wrong?

I think I see what you mean, though; I do think that in some cases, the animal could actually be no worse off from our use, e.g. possibly eggs from rescue hens (I have heard it's good to feed their eggs back to them, because of the nutrient loss in laying them, and I've also heard something about their eggs disappearing stressing them out, but the first is easy to get around, and there might be a way around the second, or it just might not be true). This is something people debate about on principle. Similarly, some socialists might oppose "wage-slavery" on principle.

So, animal rights is a pretty vast topic, and I can see where it gets pretty philosophical and controversial, but it includes some more basic ones like the right to life, which we usually grant to humans, but not to other animals, and it doesn't fall under animal welfare (some might say dead is a bad welfare level!). That murder is a crime, but slaughter and hunting aren't does seem inconsistent to me. It's a big stretch from "killing animals is wrong" to the most controversial topics within animal rights, just like it is from the right to life to "wage-slavery" for humans.

Effective altruism organizations seem to have higher standards, so I'd suggest the government follow suit. It seems unlikely, though.

I'm interested in a career in quantitative finance, but I recognize that countries don't spend much on foreign aid, i.e. to the people that need the most help, so I'd rather have more control over where my money will go, since I believe I can do better. My suggestion is that instead of donations reducing taxable income, donations would simply count as part of the taxes owed. This actually means less tax money for the government, but it might encourage donations in those that don't agree with the government. On top of low foreign aid, we also subsidize animal farming. I think this is bad.

Do you think it would make sense for the government to be more restrictive on what's considered a charity (e.g. require evidence of effectiveness) but then allow charitable donations to replace the payment of taxes? Equivalently, we would allow people to choose where a large portion of their taxes go, as long as it's to effective charities.

The systems I'm aware of currently have donations, up to a certain point, simply deducted from your income, and then you pay taxes on your reduced income. This seems to punish charity.