And with regards to the example you have given, I very much think a reasonable person can take Matty’s interpretation of Vasco; indeed, I still don’t see why this interpretation is incorrect.
I actually upvoted some of matty’s comments in this thread because of that, and did not downvote any. They made me question my arguments, and I think that is quite useful in general. However, I agree with Lizka that the tone could have been better (although I personally did not feel offended by it, because I do not see a big intrinsic difference between factory-farming humans and e.g. chickens).
Vasco seems to be suggesting that as long as ones life is worth living, been bred for slaughter is only morally bad because of the impacts on other people, not on the person being slaughtered
I agree if “bad” means better than non-existence. I disagree if “bad” is interpreted as in common usage of language, which I think pressuposes a counterfactual with higher value than non-existence. In other words, having a barely good life is better than nothing, but could be much better.
Thanks for commenting, Gideon.
I actually upvoted some of matty’s comments in this thread because of that, and did not downvote any. They made me question my arguments, and I think that is quite useful in general. However, I agree with Lizka that the tone could have been better (although I personally did not feel offended by it, because I do not see a big intrinsic difference between factory-farming humans and e.g. chickens).
I agree if “bad” means better than non-existence. I disagree if “bad” is interpreted as in common usage of language, which I think pressuposes a counterfactual with higher value than non-existence. In other words, having a barely good life is better than nothing, but could be much better.