You’re right that this is philosophically controversial. I find the debate interesting, and don’t mean to dismiss it—but I also find it incredibly difficult.
The challenge I see is whether such philosophical debates, ones that are totally unresolved, should inform our practical thinking and policy recommendations. Because within ordinary, day-to-day thinking, the idea that “it’s preferable to have more beings with lower welfare” is controversial. If you were committed to this view, and thought insects have positive welfare (I agree with @Jim Buhler that this isn’t clear), then it seems you would also have to say that the Against Malaria Foundation is doing overall bad work. Maybe you’re willing to bite that bullet—but my own inclination is to assume a more common-sense view, even if philosophically incoherent, until there is something closer to a consensus on this topic.
Those are fair point in themselves, but I don’t think “less deer is fine, so long as they have a higher standard of living” has anything like the same commonsense standing as “we should protect people from malaria with insecticide even if the insecticide hurts insects”.
And it’s not clear to me that assuming less deer is fine in itself even if their lives are good is avoiding taking a stance on the intractable philosophical debate, rather than just implicitly taking one side of it.
Oh I see I’d misunderstood your point. I thought you were concerned about lowering the number of warble flies. This policy wouldn’t lower the number of deer—it would maintain the population at the same level. This is for the sake of avoiding unwanted ecological effects. If you think it’s better to have more deer, fair enough—but then you’ve got to weigh that against the very uncertain ecological consequences of having more deer (probably something like what happened in Yellowstone Nationa Park: fewer young trees, more open fields, fewer animals that depend on those trees, more erosion etc)
Also, it’s certainly not common sense that it is always better to have less beings with higher welfare. It’s not common sense that a world with 10 incredibly happy people is better than one with a billion very slightly less happy people.
And not every theory that avoids the repugnant conclusion delivers this result, either.
No—and I wasn’t meaning to say that less beings with higher welfare is always better. Like I said, I don’t think the common sense view will be philosophically satisfying.
But a second common sense view is: if there are some beings whose existence depends on harming others, then them not coming into existence is preferable.
I expect you can find some counter-example to that, but I think most people will believe this in most situations (and certainly those involving parasites).
You’re right that this is philosophically controversial. I find the debate interesting, and don’t mean to dismiss it—but I also find it incredibly difficult.
The challenge I see is whether such philosophical debates, ones that are totally unresolved, should inform our practical thinking and policy recommendations. Because within ordinary, day-to-day thinking, the idea that “it’s preferable to have more beings with lower welfare” is controversial. If you were committed to this view, and thought insects have positive welfare (I agree with @Jim Buhler that this isn’t clear), then it seems you would also have to say that the Against Malaria Foundation is doing overall bad work. Maybe you’re willing to bite that bullet—but my own inclination is to assume a more common-sense view, even if philosophically incoherent, until there is something closer to a consensus on this topic.
Those are fair point in themselves, but I don’t think “less deer is fine, so long as they have a higher standard of living” has anything like the same commonsense standing as “we should protect people from malaria with insecticide even if the insecticide hurts insects”.
And it’s not clear to me that assuming less deer is fine in itself even if their lives are good is avoiding taking a stance on the intractable philosophical debate, rather than just implicitly taking one side of it.
Oh I see I’d misunderstood your point. I thought you were concerned about lowering the number of warble flies. This policy wouldn’t lower the number of deer—it would maintain the population at the same level. This is for the sake of avoiding unwanted ecological effects. If you think it’s better to have more deer, fair enough—but then you’ve got to weigh that against the very uncertain ecological consequences of having more deer (probably something like what happened in Yellowstone Nationa Park: fewer young trees, more open fields, fewer animals that depend on those trees, more erosion etc)
Oh, ok, I agree, if the number of deer is the same after as counterfactually, it seems plausibly net positive yes.
Also, it’s certainly not common sense that it is always better to have less beings with higher welfare. It’s not common sense that a world with 10 incredibly happy people is better than one with a billion very slightly less happy people.
And not every theory that avoids the repugnant conclusion delivers this result, either.
No—and I wasn’t meaning to say that less beings with higher welfare is always better. Like I said, I don’t think the common sense view will be philosophically satisfying.
But a second common sense view is: if there are some beings whose existence depends on harming others, then them not coming into existence is preferable.
I expect you can find some counter-example to that, but I think most people will believe this in most situations (and certainly those involving parasites).