I am “more a sort of preference utilitarian”—“moral harm” is a neutral term, and depending on your values can be “suffering” or “preference violation” or something else
Or maybe the hidden premise of wild life suffering is false: the net expected value of wild life is positive (there’s probably some positive hedonic utility in basic vital functions) & something like the repugnant conclusion is true.
not for negative (hedonist/preference) utilitarians, maybe for total utilitarians
I am “more a sort of preference utilitarian”—“moral harm” is a neutral term, and depending on your values can be “suffering” or “preference violation” or something else
not for negative (hedonist/preference) utilitarians, maybe for total utilitarians