Right. Would this reduce animal death and suffering at all or would it just absolve ourselves of responsibility for it and for them?
I get that. That's why I said its not an argument for reducing suffering or death. It won't do that. We just won't be responsible for it.
-
-
It seems you can't be purely utilitarian here. Wouldn't it suggest we go out and alleviate the suffering of wild animals?
-
I think we need to stay in the situation we have re animals currently dependant on us & whether that is better for them or not.
-
I think we should think of farm animals as having the same moral worth as pets. If we breed them, we care for them. No premature death.
-
I know and now we're back to the beginning with the other two options & whether they're better for the animals or just for our consciences.
-
The purely moral thing to do would be to stop breeding immediately and take care of all living farm animals as we would pets.
-
And let them go extinct & no further pigs or cows to live at all. That would stop death & suffering but at the cost of life. Anti-natalism.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So, if you are a consequentialist, its not the consequences for the animals which get better but humans would be less exploitative.
-
I'm finding on this issue I'm not as consequentialist as I otherwise am.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.