You make a great point about the parallel to the meat-eater problem, and I agree that, for similar reasons, itās probably still a good idea to advocate for chicken welfare reforms.
However, I donāt think reductio ad absurdum is a compelling argument in this case.
This postās argument seems absurd not because it leads to some kind of internal contradiction, but rather because it argues for something thatās way outside the things people normally think are good ideas. I donāt think āseems absurd to most peopleā is a reliable indicator of āis not ethically sound,ā because I think many people believe things and act in ways that are not morally sound (e.g., factory farming). What I love about EA is that itās a social space that encourages questioning of conventional ideas.
You make a great point about the parallel to the meat-eater problem, and I agree that, for similar reasons, itās probably still a good idea to advocate for chicken welfare reforms.
However, I donāt think reductio ad absurdum is a compelling argument in this case.
This postās argument seems absurd not because it leads to some kind of internal contradiction, but rather because it argues for something thatās way outside the things people normally think are good ideas. I donāt think āseems absurd to most peopleā is a reliable indicator of āis not ethically sound,ā because I think many people believe things and act in ways that are not morally sound (e.g., factory farming). What I love about EA is that itās a social space that encourages questioning of conventional ideas.