I used your 'beneficentrism' piece in teaching for two years on a large course at the LSE. About 300 undergraduates and 80 masters students would have had it as one of their first introductions to moral philosophy. It certainly didn't convert them all to EA, but I think it shaped their thinking in some way. A lot of our students go on to pretty high-powered or high-earning positions in finance or government, so I think it's fairly likely that this will end up moving quite a bit of money. Very difficult to concretely assess though!
Your work -- mainly your Substack writing, but also to a lesser degree your old blog, though I didn't follow it that closely or for that long -- has made me view consequentialism in a significantly more positive light. At least that's been a trend for me the past couple of years, and though it's hard to pinpoint the causality, I'm pretty sure your posts here on consequentialism, utilitarianism, beneficentrism, and also ethical theory generally (like Puzzles for Everyone and Ethics as Solutions vs Constraints) have played a pretty large role. Granted, they haven't changed my actual behaviour that much (not yet, anyway) as I was already pretty convinced by effective altruism before largely changing my mind on consequentialism.
Your writings, particularly those on utilitarianism.net, played a key role in helping me better understand and take utilitarianism more seriously. I’ve written a few posts here on Substack defending utilitarianism that extensively reference the content from that website. I believe this also influenced my decision to take EA more seriously, eventually leading me to found an organization in Italy focused on promoting effective giving. That said, it’s hard to determine exactly how things might have turned out differently!
Yours is my favourite Substack. I look out for your blog posts and always find them clear, interesting and valuable. You have become one of the most important writers on utilitarianism through the consistent quality of your thinking and presentation, and you are thereby contributing to both philosophical utilitarianism and the wider effective altruism movement. I am also a fan of Utilitarianism.net, which is now very well done. Among your work, I particularly value your championing of ‘beneficience’ and ‘deontic pluralism,’ but I most appreciate the simple regularity of your fine posts. You have certainly influenced my thinking and I have referenced your papers and Utilitarianism.net in my writing. Thank you!
I very much enjoy reading your emails as they come through - they serve as a reminder for me to think a little philosophically for the day. I'm something of a deontologist myself but have shared utilitarianism.net and your emails with colleagues and friends who are interested in ethics or consequentialism more broadly. I also run a practical philosophy discussion group in Sydney Australia called Whisky and Wisdom and we're always looking for inspiration for topics of discussion, so blog posts and articles come in handy for this too.
"I'm something of a deontologist myself". I would love to see more comments from you! As a frequent commenter on this blog, I sometimes try to play the role of the deontologist by challenging Richard, but I'm only acting.
I have found your work useful in thinking and teaching!
Teaching: I recommend specific substack posts to students, as well as utilitarianism.net. I find your writing helpful because it's written clearly without historical or conceptual clutter, so students can get directly to the relevant arguments and understand how they matter. One thing I want for students is just to encounter models of good philosophical writing by professionals who are working on these issues today. So when students ask how philosophers *now* argue about trolley problem type cases, I point them to posts like on the "new deontological paradox" or "the normativity objection to deontology." These are nice because they model sharp disagreement presented with admirable clarity and without any incivility to one's interlocutors. Second, I also teach Mill and Singer in my intro class, and these provide resources I use to supplement content for students who want to go further into the substantive issues.
About my own thinking: Your contributions have been informative for me on two fronts. First is the substantive normative issue. You've persuaded me that many traditional objections to the utilitarian were really to telegraphic and metaphorical to land against their opponents. The deontologist needs to do more to say why separateness of persons tells against the utilitarian, for example. I think that you have exposed the problems with these kinds of metaphors more, really, than anyone else in the discipline I can think of. Second, I think you've made trouble for normative primacy of deontological conceptual categories in an interesting way. Why do we think permissibility is so morally freighted? On this front, I am personally more movable and I do now think we've taken all-things-considered normativity for granted in ways that were unjustified.
About my students thinking: I always have a few that are really moved by the Singer style cases, and I sometimes suggest to them your substack and website, but I haven't been very good about following up with them to see if they change their practices. However writing this has made me think I should do more of that informally and on course evaluation questionnaires.
I think your blogging has influenced me in the following ways:
1. I've become much more sympathetic to Utilitarianism. Prior to regularly reading your blog I probably would have leaned toward some form of Ethical Pluralism. I also thought certain objections to Utilitarianism while not quite decisive, were pretty close. I no longer think that. I now think some form of Consequentialism is likely true and am much more sympathetic to Utilitarianism. And I've found the responses you give to the Individual Rights Objection and Demandingness concern pretty convincing. I don't know how much this has influenced me practically. I was strongly in the EA / Strong beneficence camp prior to regularly reading your work. But I suspect that there is some positive influence that regularly reading your work has in terms of pushing me to live more closely in line with the views I actually hold (increasing my giving, taking the Giving What We Can pledge, focusing on more important projects, etc).
2. Your posts and essays on Deontic Pluralism have basically convinced me that I was previously thinking about the concept of 'right' incorrectly. They've also dissolved a sort of puzzle I previously felt about the demandingness of morality and how much I ought to give.
3. I now use Utilitarianism.net when I teach Utilitarianism in my Intro to Ethics class, and I frequently include your post "Confessions of a Cheeseburger Ethicist" as a reading when I cover the ethics of factory farming and arguments for veganism. I use your essay on Pandemic Ethics when teaching Bioethics.
Your work has profoundly influenced my thinking and actions in both practical and philosophical domains.
Practically, your insights inspired me to take concrete steps to reduce suffering: I became vegan, successfully advocated for consumer choices among friends that reduce animal suffering, and redirected my research income toward effective charitable giving. I've also helped campus organizations discover more impactful charitable resources through platforms like GiveWell. Moreover, I've changed my career path to one that has more higher potential to be impactful on current and future welfare.
Theoretically, your approach to ethics has been nothing short of revelatory. You're really the reason I love ethics so much. Your approach to ethics and writing is so intoxicating that I have continued to gravitate to it throughout my entire journey through ethics. In general, the convergence of our views on all matters involving normative ethics has been so striking that I've found myself critically examining the rationality of my belief formation and credence adjustments. Which is just another way of saying that your arguments are so persuasive that I agree with you on almost all normative ethical matters. For instance, I've been converted to a consequentialism—which out of all the things I list in this comment, is where you have had the most influence. Additionally, I find myself increasingly convinced by your arguments about fittingness as the fundamental feature of normativity. You have not only convinced me of this position, but your theoretical contributions have significantly refined my understanding of meta-ethics in general as a consequence. These are just two examples, but I hope it gives you an idea of the range of topic you have influenced me in.
This is but a snippet of the impact you have had on me, but I hope it is helpful.
P.S. My apologies for the delayed comment. I had been experiencing some issues involving my main account for a while and recently created this account to ensure I could share my appreciation.
Your writing (on the substack...I haven't dug much into the various links) has been really useful in helping think through a variety of things I run into when considering: a) extent to which I align with EA principles and use them as a guide to action, b) everyday issues one is confronted with living in (unequal/imperfect) societies, c) considering how utilitarianism looks under various critical perspectives (particularly its adjacencies to other ethical frameworks), d) specifics of AI alignment/existential/suffering risks that result in medium/long-term futures. I'm doing a PhD on topic (d), so this has been really helpful as introductory material and pointers to further work. This substack, as well as other EA-related content, is also helpful in thinking about donating/giving. So I hope you keep writing - also a shout out to Peter Singer's endorsement on a podcast I had heard !
Not a huge impact boon this, but your work on consequentialist foundations, particularly the 2015 paper Value Receptacles, has had a significant impact on my thinking about the "moral metaphysics" of consequentialism. I'm developing a version of Prioritarianism that borrows quite a bit from that paper. But unfortunately, I'm the world's slowest philosopher, so it's still in peer-review purgatory. The paper Deservingness Transfers (Utilitas 2020) doesn't directly draw on either of the above, but the possibility of a new and better view (which might also enable a more plausible form of Desertarianism) was part of my motivation for criticizing the traditional consequentialist framework.
I'm also a big fan of multi-level consequentialism, which you've posted about on blogs both old and new, if I remember correctly. But that's more of a case of arriving at similar views independently. In fact, I've had the experience a couple of times of having a good idea only to find that you've published it already on your blog. Annoying that!
Other comnenters have mentioned wonderful things about you, Richard. And they seem to me some big names in philosophy right now like Miles Tucker. And I am just a 25 year old brown guy from India raised in an upper middle class family, so I will just say that you have significantly shaped my view of consequentialism and impacted my career trajectory positively.
I have found your work deeply valuable. Let me mention a couple of examples.
Teaching: On your Philosophy Etc. blog some years ago, you wrote a short post on the ‘organ harvest’ scenario. The post proceeds by first asking us to consider two worlds—one world in which our five patients die and the bystander lives, and one world in which the five patients live and the bystander dies.
You then ask us to consider what we ought to do given a choice (by God, who will wipe our memory after) between:
A: pushing a button to save the five patients and kill the lone bystander or
B: doing nothing, resulting in the death of the five.
Finally, you ask us to consider what we ought to do given a choice (again by God) between:
A: putting up a razor sharp wire, which will painlessly kill the bystander—who is conveniently right outside a hospital—and therefore save the five
B: putting the wire in the trash and allowing the five patients to die.
I adapted this post into a student exercise in 2017 and have used it every semester in my introduction to ethics courses; I would estimate that about 1400 students have done this exercise with me. In one class period, I introduce the organ harvest scenario and do as much as I can to make the students think that the utilitarian verdict is monstrous and untenable. In the next, I surprise them with your post, divided into sections. We read through the first scenario and then take an in class vote about what we think best/what we ought to do. Almost all think the world would be best if the 5 lived; most (after some grumbling) think they ought to push the button to save the five…and about 55%-60% think they should put up the wire.
Having nearly unanimously agreed that they cannot kill the bystander to save the five patients only days ago, I can feel the students being torn in a way that is surprising and wonderful. Students who seem sometimes as if they are asleep are often so worked up they’re talking over each other, arguing after class, etc. It’s a highlight of the course.
I assign parts of Utilitarianism.net, especially for my upper level normative ethics course. I am particularly fond of the arguments in favor of utilitarianism: the discussions of impartiality, what ultimately matters, etc. are excellent. I think these arguments help the students see that utilitarianism is not some crude theory that aims to treat people like cattle, but is grounded in important and powerful insights about the nature of morality.
Finally, in my senior seminar on population ethics, your short text on Parft is required reading.
Research: I find your research program to be one of the most exciting in contemporary moral philosophy. “The Right Wrong-makers” inspired my “Consequentialism and Our Best Selves”. I also have quite a bit of work in progress which draws upon (i) a post from Philosophy Etc. from 2009 about ideal morality; (ii) your 2012 paper in Phil Quarterly (in particular, the discussion of global consequentialism there) and (iii) your contribution to the Oxford Handbook of Consequentialism on deontic pluralism.
Of course, I fear we disagree about (at a minimum) the significance of fittingness and the conceptual role of deontic concepts. But in every case, your views have clarified mine and seem to me significant and important competitors to the positions I prefer.
A confluence of influences since 2022, including your writing, have helped guide me to, among other things, volunteer my time and energy with high-impact EA organizations (Rethink Priorities, Shrimp Welfare Project, etc.), participate in virtual programs and fellowships in the EA space (reading group for Toby Ord's "The Precipice," fellowship for an intro to s-risks, etc ), and take the trial pledge with GWWC!
As a rank amateur I find your writing re: beneficence and utilitarianism both interesting and helpful - thank you! The only negative is your occasional normalisation of akrasia (e.g. your Cheeseburger piece) which feels like it undermines, at least to some extent, your entire effort.
I'd be very interested to hear from anyone who has changed their behavior as a result of my thoughts on Cheeseburger ethics. (I expect such changes are more likely to be positive than negative - e.g. increased offsetting from people who would never become vegan anyway. But it's an open empirical question, and I'd welcome concrete evidence either way. If some folks were about to make the leap to veganism, and then decided not to bother, but *also* didn't increase their offsetting donations accordingly, that would for sure be a shame!)
Thanks Richard - I agree that would be interesting. You may well be right about the net positive impact. It would also be interesting to compare against an alternative scenario where you laid out the ethical case for boycotting animal agriculture/exploitation but then carried it through personally into veganism as well as donations/activism. I wonder to what extent that would encourage others, through your substantial influence (!), to put moral philosophy into direct personal practice - seeing it as serious enough to warrant overcoming akrasia / social pressures. Just as we do in non-maleficent intra-human ethics - where offsetting seems unacceptable.
I don't think I actually changed my own behavior or beliefs that much, since I only recently found your work and already thought utilitarianism made the most sense out of any ethical theory. But it has changed the way I think about utilitarianism and meta-ethics more broadly in ways that will probably make me more convincing when arguing for utilitarianism. So I guess that fits with the "wanting to make utilitarianism more respectable" goal.
Also, I've had some issues with your substack where I got an error when trying to click certain links to your articles. It's not happening to me anymore, though it was happening as recently as a few days ago, so I'm not sure if the bug was just fixed.
I haven't done much teaching in the past couple of years, but when I get back to it I plan to use utilitarianism.net. I think it's a great resource and much, much better than the next-best thing.
I used your 'beneficentrism' piece in teaching for two years on a large course at the LSE. About 300 undergraduates and 80 masters students would have had it as one of their first introductions to moral philosophy. It certainly didn't convert them all to EA, but I think it shaped their thinking in some way. A lot of our students go on to pretty high-powered or high-earning positions in finance or government, so I think it's fairly likely that this will end up moving quite a bit of money. Very difficult to concretely assess though!
Very encouraging, thanks!
Your work -- mainly your Substack writing, but also to a lesser degree your old blog, though I didn't follow it that closely or for that long -- has made me view consequentialism in a significantly more positive light. At least that's been a trend for me the past couple of years, and though it's hard to pinpoint the causality, I'm pretty sure your posts here on consequentialism, utilitarianism, beneficentrism, and also ethical theory generally (like Puzzles for Everyone and Ethics as Solutions vs Constraints) have played a pretty large role. Granted, they haven't changed my actual behaviour that much (not yet, anyway) as I was already pretty convinced by effective altruism before largely changing my mind on consequentialism.
Thanks, that's encouraging to hear!
Your writings, particularly those on utilitarianism.net, played a key role in helping me better understand and take utilitarianism more seriously. I’ve written a few posts here on Substack defending utilitarianism that extensively reference the content from that website. I believe this also influenced my decision to take EA more seriously, eventually leading me to found an organization in Italy focused on promoting effective giving. That said, it’s hard to determine exactly how things might have turned out differently!
Wow, very cool!
Yours is my favourite Substack. I look out for your blog posts and always find them clear, interesting and valuable. You have become one of the most important writers on utilitarianism through the consistent quality of your thinking and presentation, and you are thereby contributing to both philosophical utilitarianism and the wider effective altruism movement. I am also a fan of Utilitarianism.net, which is now very well done. Among your work, I particularly value your championing of ‘beneficience’ and ‘deontic pluralism,’ but I most appreciate the simple regularity of your fine posts. You have certainly influenced my thinking and I have referenced your papers and Utilitarianism.net in my writing. Thank you!
I very much enjoy reading your emails as they come through - they serve as a reminder for me to think a little philosophically for the day. I'm something of a deontologist myself but have shared utilitarianism.net and your emails with colleagues and friends who are interested in ethics or consequentialism more broadly. I also run a practical philosophy discussion group in Sydney Australia called Whisky and Wisdom and we're always looking for inspiration for topics of discussion, so blog posts and articles come in handy for this too.
"I'm something of a deontologist myself". I would love to see more comments from you! As a frequent commenter on this blog, I sometimes try to play the role of the deontologist by challenging Richard, but I'm only acting.
I have found your work useful in thinking and teaching!
Teaching: I recommend specific substack posts to students, as well as utilitarianism.net. I find your writing helpful because it's written clearly without historical or conceptual clutter, so students can get directly to the relevant arguments and understand how they matter. One thing I want for students is just to encounter models of good philosophical writing by professionals who are working on these issues today. So when students ask how philosophers *now* argue about trolley problem type cases, I point them to posts like on the "new deontological paradox" or "the normativity objection to deontology." These are nice because they model sharp disagreement presented with admirable clarity and without any incivility to one's interlocutors. Second, I also teach Mill and Singer in my intro class, and these provide resources I use to supplement content for students who want to go further into the substantive issues.
About my own thinking: Your contributions have been informative for me on two fronts. First is the substantive normative issue. You've persuaded me that many traditional objections to the utilitarian were really to telegraphic and metaphorical to land against their opponents. The deontologist needs to do more to say why separateness of persons tells against the utilitarian, for example. I think that you have exposed the problems with these kinds of metaphors more, really, than anyone else in the discipline I can think of. Second, I think you've made trouble for normative primacy of deontological conceptual categories in an interesting way. Why do we think permissibility is so morally freighted? On this front, I am personally more movable and I do now think we've taken all-things-considered normativity for granted in ways that were unjustified.
About my students thinking: I always have a few that are really moved by the Singer style cases, and I sometimes suggest to them your substack and website, but I haven't been very good about following up with them to see if they change their practices. However writing this has made me think I should do more of that informally and on course evaluation questionnaires.
I think your blogging has influenced me in the following ways:
1. I've become much more sympathetic to Utilitarianism. Prior to regularly reading your blog I probably would have leaned toward some form of Ethical Pluralism. I also thought certain objections to Utilitarianism while not quite decisive, were pretty close. I no longer think that. I now think some form of Consequentialism is likely true and am much more sympathetic to Utilitarianism. And I've found the responses you give to the Individual Rights Objection and Demandingness concern pretty convincing. I don't know how much this has influenced me practically. I was strongly in the EA / Strong beneficence camp prior to regularly reading your work. But I suspect that there is some positive influence that regularly reading your work has in terms of pushing me to live more closely in line with the views I actually hold (increasing my giving, taking the Giving What We Can pledge, focusing on more important projects, etc).
2. Your posts and essays on Deontic Pluralism have basically convinced me that I was previously thinking about the concept of 'right' incorrectly. They've also dissolved a sort of puzzle I previously felt about the demandingness of morality and how much I ought to give.
3. I now use Utilitarianism.net when I teach Utilitarianism in my Intro to Ethics class, and I frequently include your post "Confessions of a Cheeseburger Ethicist" as a reading when I cover the ethics of factory farming and arguments for veganism. I use your essay on Pandemic Ethics when teaching Bioethics.
Thanks, that's great to hear!
Your work has profoundly influenced my thinking and actions in both practical and philosophical domains.
Practically, your insights inspired me to take concrete steps to reduce suffering: I became vegan, successfully advocated for consumer choices among friends that reduce animal suffering, and redirected my research income toward effective charitable giving. I've also helped campus organizations discover more impactful charitable resources through platforms like GiveWell. Moreover, I've changed my career path to one that has more higher potential to be impactful on current and future welfare.
Theoretically, your approach to ethics has been nothing short of revelatory. You're really the reason I love ethics so much. Your approach to ethics and writing is so intoxicating that I have continued to gravitate to it throughout my entire journey through ethics. In general, the convergence of our views on all matters involving normative ethics has been so striking that I've found myself critically examining the rationality of my belief formation and credence adjustments. Which is just another way of saying that your arguments are so persuasive that I agree with you on almost all normative ethical matters. For instance, I've been converted to a consequentialism—which out of all the things I list in this comment, is where you have had the most influence. Additionally, I find myself increasingly convinced by your arguments about fittingness as the fundamental feature of normativity. You have not only convinced me of this position, but your theoretical contributions have significantly refined my understanding of meta-ethics in general as a consequence. These are just two examples, but I hope it gives you an idea of the range of topic you have influenced me in.
This is but a snippet of the impact you have had on me, but I hope it is helpful.
P.S. My apologies for the delayed comment. I had been experiencing some issues involving my main account for a while and recently created this account to ensure I could share my appreciation.
Thanks so much for sharing this - and best wishes for whatever your future plans may bring!
Your writing (on the substack...I haven't dug much into the various links) has been really useful in helping think through a variety of things I run into when considering: a) extent to which I align with EA principles and use them as a guide to action, b) everyday issues one is confronted with living in (unequal/imperfect) societies, c) considering how utilitarianism looks under various critical perspectives (particularly its adjacencies to other ethical frameworks), d) specifics of AI alignment/existential/suffering risks that result in medium/long-term futures. I'm doing a PhD on topic (d), so this has been really helpful as introductory material and pointers to further work. This substack, as well as other EA-related content, is also helpful in thinking about donating/giving. So I hope you keep writing - also a shout out to Peter Singer's endorsement on a podcast I had heard !
Not a huge impact boon this, but your work on consequentialist foundations, particularly the 2015 paper Value Receptacles, has had a significant impact on my thinking about the "moral metaphysics" of consequentialism. I'm developing a version of Prioritarianism that borrows quite a bit from that paper. But unfortunately, I'm the world's slowest philosopher, so it's still in peer-review purgatory. The paper Deservingness Transfers (Utilitas 2020) doesn't directly draw on either of the above, but the possibility of a new and better view (which might also enable a more plausible form of Desertarianism) was part of my motivation for criticizing the traditional consequentialist framework.
I'm also a big fan of multi-level consequentialism, which you've posted about on blogs both old and new, if I remember correctly. But that's more of a case of arriving at similar views independently. In fact, I've had the experience a couple of times of having a good idea only to find that you've published it already on your blog. Annoying that!
Other comnenters have mentioned wonderful things about you, Richard. And they seem to me some big names in philosophy right now like Miles Tucker. And I am just a 25 year old brown guy from India raised in an upper middle class family, so I will just say that you have significantly shaped my view of consequentialism and impacted my career trajectory positively.
I have found your work deeply valuable. Let me mention a couple of examples.
Teaching: On your Philosophy Etc. blog some years ago, you wrote a short post on the ‘organ harvest’ scenario. The post proceeds by first asking us to consider two worlds—one world in which our five patients die and the bystander lives, and one world in which the five patients live and the bystander dies.
You then ask us to consider what we ought to do given a choice (by God, who will wipe our memory after) between:
A: pushing a button to save the five patients and kill the lone bystander or
B: doing nothing, resulting in the death of the five.
Finally, you ask us to consider what we ought to do given a choice (again by God) between:
A: putting up a razor sharp wire, which will painlessly kill the bystander—who is conveniently right outside a hospital—and therefore save the five
B: putting the wire in the trash and allowing the five patients to die.
I adapted this post into a student exercise in 2017 and have used it every semester in my introduction to ethics courses; I would estimate that about 1400 students have done this exercise with me. In one class period, I introduce the organ harvest scenario and do as much as I can to make the students think that the utilitarian verdict is monstrous and untenable. In the next, I surprise them with your post, divided into sections. We read through the first scenario and then take an in class vote about what we think best/what we ought to do. Almost all think the world would be best if the 5 lived; most (after some grumbling) think they ought to push the button to save the five…and about 55%-60% think they should put up the wire.
Having nearly unanimously agreed that they cannot kill the bystander to save the five patients only days ago, I can feel the students being torn in a way that is surprising and wonderful. Students who seem sometimes as if they are asleep are often so worked up they’re talking over each other, arguing after class, etc. It’s a highlight of the course.
I assign parts of Utilitarianism.net, especially for my upper level normative ethics course. I am particularly fond of the arguments in favor of utilitarianism: the discussions of impartiality, what ultimately matters, etc. are excellent. I think these arguments help the students see that utilitarianism is not some crude theory that aims to treat people like cattle, but is grounded in important and powerful insights about the nature of morality.
Finally, in my senior seminar on population ethics, your short text on Parft is required reading.
Research: I find your research program to be one of the most exciting in contemporary moral philosophy. “The Right Wrong-makers” inspired my “Consequentialism and Our Best Selves”. I also have quite a bit of work in progress which draws upon (i) a post from Philosophy Etc. from 2009 about ideal morality; (ii) your 2012 paper in Phil Quarterly (in particular, the discussion of global consequentialism there) and (iii) your contribution to the Oxford Handbook of Consequentialism on deontic pluralism.
Of course, I fear we disagree about (at a minimum) the significance of fittingness and the conceptual role of deontic concepts. But in every case, your views have clarified mine and seem to me significant and important competitors to the positions I prefer.
Thanks Miles! That teaching exercise sounds especially fun - I'm glad to have inspired it!
A confluence of influences since 2022, including your writing, have helped guide me to, among other things, volunteer my time and energy with high-impact EA organizations (Rethink Priorities, Shrimp Welfare Project, etc.), participate in virtual programs and fellowships in the EA space (reading group for Toby Ord's "The Precipice," fellowship for an intro to s-risks, etc ), and take the trial pledge with GWWC!
As a rank amateur I find your writing re: beneficence and utilitarianism both interesting and helpful - thank you! The only negative is your occasional normalisation of akrasia (e.g. your Cheeseburger piece) which feels like it undermines, at least to some extent, your entire effort.
I'd be very interested to hear from anyone who has changed their behavior as a result of my thoughts on Cheeseburger ethics. (I expect such changes are more likely to be positive than negative - e.g. increased offsetting from people who would never become vegan anyway. But it's an open empirical question, and I'd welcome concrete evidence either way. If some folks were about to make the leap to veganism, and then decided not to bother, but *also* didn't increase their offsetting donations accordingly, that would for sure be a shame!)
Thanks Richard - I agree that would be interesting. You may well be right about the net positive impact. It would also be interesting to compare against an alternative scenario where you laid out the ethical case for boycotting animal agriculture/exploitation but then carried it through personally into veganism as well as donations/activism. I wonder to what extent that would encourage others, through your substantial influence (!), to put moral philosophy into direct personal practice - seeing it as serious enough to warrant overcoming akrasia / social pressures. Just as we do in non-maleficent intra-human ethics - where offsetting seems unacceptable.
I don't think I actually changed my own behavior or beliefs that much, since I only recently found your work and already thought utilitarianism made the most sense out of any ethical theory. But it has changed the way I think about utilitarianism and meta-ethics more broadly in ways that will probably make me more convincing when arguing for utilitarianism. So I guess that fits with the "wanting to make utilitarianism more respectable" goal.
Also, I've had some issues with your substack where I got an error when trying to click certain links to your articles. It's not happening to me anymore, though it was happening as recently as a few days ago, so I'm not sure if the bug was just fixed.
I haven't done much teaching in the past couple of years, but when I get back to it I plan to use utilitarianism.net. I think it's a great resource and much, much better than the next-best thing.