Volume XII · The Essentials of Animal Ethics · chapter 14
Changing Public Debate and Political Institutions
Before you read study layer, not part of the original text
Improving public debate and institutions is crucial for avoiding s-risks: thinking in nuances, discussing arguments rather than people, intellectual honesty, a broad-range approach, protecting democracy, representing all sentient beings; even small improvements would make a big difference.
When people talk with respect, without treating everything as "us against them," they can solve hard problems. Protecting democracy and remembering those who cannot vote, like animals, helps too.
A meeting where everyone listens to the arguments, and not just to who is speaking, makes better decisions than one where everyone shouts.
- P1 Dysfunctional politics encourages polarization and increases the risk of malevolent agents in power.
- P2 Thinking in nuances, evaluating arguments rather than people, and being intellectually honest reduce tribalism.
- P3 Democracy protects against the concentration of power and guarantees the freedom to raise ethical concerns.
- C So improving debate and institutions, even a little, greatly reduces the risks of future suffering.
The chapter’s central argument in logical form. If the premises are true, the conclusion follows. To disagree, you have to show which premise is false.
They say “If the argument came from the other side, it must be wrong.”
Answer That tendency prevents serious debate. The table suggests evaluating arguments without knowing who proposed them.
More objections and answers in Debunking objections.
Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume XII, p. 50 of the PDF edition · English translation
In what follows, the term politics will be used in a broad sense, encompassing both institutions and public debate. Dysfunctional politics can encourage polarization, hinder efforts to reduce , increase the risk of malevolent agents coming to power, and, at the extreme, can even prevent discussion of any ethical question at all61.
Thus, trying to improve politics (both in terms of institutions and in terms of the level of public debate) is crucial for avoiding s-risks. Below are some strategies to this end.
| Strategies for improving public debate and institutions | |
|---|---|
| Strategy | Explanation |
| Thinking in terms of nuance – and not in terms of “0 or 1,” “us vs. them,” etc. (IX, ch. 11.3, 11.4) | If we try to think in terms of the positive and negative points of each perspective, and think in terms of degrees of confidence rather than rigid certainties, we can avoid a “0 or 1,” “us and them” kind of mindset. Tribalism creates an appearance of great disagreement even when disagreement is limited. Reducing tribalism opens the door to cooperation and mutual compromise. |
| Discussing the argument, whoever made it. That is, avoiding the ad hominem and appeal to authority fallacies. (IX, ch. 11.4). | The general tendency is that, if the person who made the argument belongs to “our side” or to the group we want to defend, their argument is accepted even if they are wrong, and if they belong to the “other side,” it is rejected even if the argument is sound and points to a serious problem with our view. This tendency has prevented serious debate on any question, even in academic circles. One way to avoid this tendency is to discuss arguments without knowing who their proponents are (or, if this is not possible, to try to imagine what we would think if we did not know). |
| Intellectual honesty (IX, ch. 11.4). | Discussing arguments in a serious and intellectually honest way, without distorting the position and arguments of those who disagree, and recognizing that we may be mistaken about many things. |
| Adopting an inclusive approach. (VIII, ch. 5; IX, ch. 11.5). | This consists in emphasizing that the goals we want to achieve can be accepted even if people disagree with us on other points. This reduces polarization (since it shows that, despite disagreements, there can be common goals). Goals such as consideration for all sentient beings, the prevention of s-risks and of wild animal suffering, and the rejection of speciesism and substratism can be accepted without our having to accept a specific view, whether in ethics or in politics. Emphasizing this increases the potential for these goals to be accepted by people holding the most varied ethical and political positions. Another example: improving political culture and institutions is good not only for reducing s-risks, but for several other goals (which increases the likelihood of cooperation). |
| Protecting democracy. (IX, ch. 11.6). | Democracy prevents any single individual from gaining too much power, and so reduces the influence of malevolent agents. In terms of s-risks, it is more important to avoid institutional catastrophes than to try to achieve the best possible institutions. For example, in terms of s-risks, the difference between a democracy and a totalitarian regime is much greater than that between a functioning democracy and a flawed democracy. Modern liberal democracies offer protection for human rights and civil liberties, such as freedom of expression, which are a precondition for raising ethical concerns. |
| Political representation of all sentient beings. (IX, ch. 11.6). | Trying to establish representatives for sentient beings who cannot represent themselves (such as nonhuman animals and future sentient beings, whether future animals or possible sentient beings in digital media). |
| Why even a small improvement would make a big difference. (IX, ch. 11.7). | The current situation (of institutions and of public debate) is so bad that even a marginal improvement would be very beneficial. It is realistic to hope that we will be less biased and tribal, that institutions will work better, and that we will rely more on considered values and evidence, even if we cannot change most of the picture. Modest, continuous improvements can, after a long enough time, make a big difference. |
Practice
Study layer. The answers are based on the chapter’s text.
Why is political representation for all sentient beings proposed?
In terms of s-risks, what matters most?
Food for thought
In a recent discussion, did you acknowledge any good argument from the "other side"?
Sources cited in this text 2
The full list for the volume is in the Volume XII references.
- BAUMANN, T. Avoiding the worst final: how to prevent a moral cathastrophe. Center for Reducing Suffering, 2022.
- VINDING, M. Reasoned Politics. Copenhagen: Ratio Ethica, 2022.
Go deeper on each point
The chapters the author points to in the tables above.
Recommended texts
Keep exploring The Essentials of Animal Ethics.
Debates on Activism Strategies
The table summarizes strategic debates in activism: veganism or reduction, reform or abolition, indirect…
Evaluating Different Strategies
To evaluate strategies, we can use metacriteria: tackling causes, preventing backsliding, how much it has…
Conclusion
The volume closes the collection with an overview of the main questions in animal ethics, offering an…