Weekly Newsletter from Christian Vegetarian Association CVA - November 1, 2017
From Christian Vegetarian Association (CVA)

  1. This Week’s Sermon from Rev. Frank and Mary Hoffman
  2. Original Sin, part 13
  3. Unfounded Attack on Animal Charities Evaluators

1. This Week’s Sermon from Rev. Frank and Mary Hoffman

Testing Jesus Christ Challenges God

2. Original Sin, part 13

Jesus said, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5). However, history does not confirm that the meek prevail in a material sense. Much more often than not, those who are weak and vulnerable are victims of greedy and power-hungry authorities. The weakest and most vulnerable – the nonhuman animals – are the most abused. Spiritually, however, the meek may gain a sense of purpose and fulfillment by choosing to serve God.

In contrast, Jesus asserted “woe to you that are rich, for you have received your consolation (Luke 6:24). I think Jesus held that wealth tends to separate people from God and others, because he observed that rich people tend to do whatever is necessary to amass and protect money. I think this view reflected the rampant corruption of Jesus’ day. Of course, the quest for wealth is ultimately futile, because we all die and, in death, we lose all our possessions.

Next week, I will offer thoughts on how stories about Jesus’ death can assist our quest for a sense of salvation.

Stephen R. Kaufman, MD

3. Unfounded Attack on Animal Charities Evaluators

Many people who want to help animals donate to animal protection groups. There are many such groups, and it’s not easy to determine which groups most effectively protect animals. Animal Charities Evaluators (ACE) was founded to assist this process. Recently the animal rights group Showing Kindness and Respect for Animals (SHARK) released two videos in which they accused ACE of profoundly unethical behavior. SHARK went so far as to claim that there should be a criminal investigation of ACE. As an admirer of many of the people who have worked for and with ACE, I was skeptical of these charges. After reviewing SHARK’s claims, I find them unfounded. I will comment on what I regard as the three most serious charges. Other claims, such as the supposedly sinister reasons that ACE “rebranded” itself, evidently derive from these three charges.

1. SHARK claims that ACE “preselected” and have “conflicts of interest” with the four charities that ACE has endorsed as “top charities.” ACE clearly states that it uses the criterion of “effective altruism” to choose these charities. In other words, ACE has sought to identify those charities that most efficiently help the most animals per dollar expended. Only a fraction of charities that claim to assist animals have a good chance to earn “top charity” designation. As ACE makes clear, this criterion will tend to favor groups working against animal agribusiness, because farmed animals constitute the vast majority of animals who are abused and killed. Consequently, the thousands of local shelters, rescues, and local veg. support groups would not be strong candidates for ACE’s highest endorsements. While it is likely that only a few dozen groups, at most, would be strong candidates for ACE’s highest endorsements, this is very different from the claim that the endorsed groups are preselected. SHARK objects to effective altruism as a criterion for the “top charities” and promises to articulate these objections in the future. SHARK might or might not have good arguments against effective altruism, but ACE’s use of effective altruism does not constitute ethical impropriety.

2. Specifically, SHARK claims that ACE has an “ethical conflict” with Nick Cooney, who has or had positions with three of the charities that received “top charities” designation from ACE and a relationship with the fourth. Cooney’s relationship to ACE has been to serve on a board that helps determine which research projects ACE will sponsor. He has never served on the board that evaluates the groups and determines which charities will receive “top charity” designation. I can think of no reason for ACE to favor organizations simply because they have or had associations with Nick Cooney. That said, I don’t think these associations are coincidental. Organizations focused on helping as many animals as possible would want to work with Cooney, who is bright, creative, and has well-received books to his credit that, among other things, seek to identify the most effective ways to help animals. I see no evidence for claiming a conflict of interest or an “ethical conflict” between ACE and the organizations it has endorsed.

3. SHARK claims that it is “absolutely dishonest and unethical” that in 2015 ACE designated the group Animals Australia a “standout charity” – ACE’s second highest designation – because of ACE’s relationship with Peter Singer. SHARK notes that Singer served on the ACE board and is an advisor for ACE. However, according to ACE Executive Director Jon Bockman, Singer served on the ACE board in 2014 and was not involved in deliberations regarding Animals Australia’s designation in 2015. Further, SHARK acknowledges that, while Singer has helped fundraise for Animals Australia, he no longer has a position with that organization. Finally, according to Bockman, the ACE advisory board (typical of non-profit advisory boards) discusses general strategy and does not make specific organization decisions.

Though SHARK has asserted that a criminal investigation is in order, in my opinion SHARK’s charges are baseless.

Stephen R. Kaufman, MD

Newsletter Archives 2006-2017
See All Newsletter Archives