(Caveat: I haven't actually read the post and have not voted on the post. I am inclined to believe that the OP's methodology is generally good given the OP's track record of publishing high-quality posts and comments. It could be the case that this post is an outlier and is actually poorly argued - hence the downvotes)

For those who are downvoting this post, could you please explain why you're downvoting? Off the top of my head, here are some reasons for why people would be downvoting:

1. You disagree with the conclusions of the post (in which case, it usually makes more sense to disagree-vote)
2. You disagree with the methodology / think that the methodology is flawed (in which case, a downvote is likely justified)
3. You feel like the OP "spams" the EA forum with similar arguments and that each new post is not adding value on the margin (in which case, it probably makes sense to downvote?)
   1. If this is how you feel, I'm not sure what the OP should do in response. Should the OP stop posting?

It is possible to rationally prioritise between causes without engaging deeply on philosophical issues

Population axiology is a major crux for cause prio. Additionally, different moral views on wild animals massively changes cause prio. 

Morality is Objective

Roughly speaking, I find emotivism to be the most convincing metaethical theory