Thanks, Karthik. I think not saving distant (not close) drowning children because they may well (not might) do terrible (not bad) things makes much more sense than not saving them because there are more of them. It is quite reasonable to think that not benefiting some people (drowning children) may be for the greater good (if they would cause lots of suffering to farmed animals). In contrast, I do not see how one can justify not decreasing harm just because one could not eliminate all harm.
Thanks, Karthik. I think not saving distant (not close) drowning children because they may well (not might) do terrible (not bad) things makes much more sense than not saving them because there are more of them. It is quite reasonable to think that not benefiting some people (drowning children) may be for the greater good (if they would cause lots of suffering to farmed animals). In contrast, I do not see how one can justify not decreasing harm just because one could not eliminate all harm.