The shrimp welfare project

Did the author factor in the impact of this kind of article on the external perception of the rationalist / utilitarian / EA community when weighing the utility of publishing this?

Should you push arguments that seem ridiculously unacceptable to the vast majority of people, thereby reducing the weight of more acceptable arguments you could possibly make?

Should we stop making logically sound but unpalatable arguments?

That may be part of the intent.

How palatable an argument is determines its actual impact. It's not logical to spend effort making arguments that are so unpalatable that they will just make people ignore you.

Deontologically, maybe it's principally better to make an argument you know you can't refute. Maybe even just to try to convince yourself otherwise.

I know the person making this argument isn't necessarily aligned with deontology. Maybe that was your original point.

The article seems to have been well-received: https://benthams.substack.com/p/you-all-helped-hundreds-of-m...

I think this is a tough call in general. Current morality would be considered "ridiculously unacceptable" by 1800s standards, but I see it as a good thing that we've moved away from 1800s morality. I'm glad people were willing to challenge the 1800s status quo. At the same time, my sense is that the environmentalists who are ruining art in museums are probably challenging the status quo in a way that's unproductive.

To some degree, I suspect the rationalist / EA crowd has decided that weird contrarians tend to be the people who have the greatest impact in the long run, so it's OK to filter for those people.

It remains to be seen that anyone besides the EA community takes the EA community seriously, I wouldn't worry about it.