I know it’s standard in the literature to consider scenarios with a binary option, but I don’t see why we should, even within maximizing utilitarianism. In any real-life situation, you always have more options. This is especially true if we consider different time horizions.
In the situation you’re focusing on, CAFOS might have higher aggregate welfare than whatever would replace them right now. But what about in 20 years? What about in 100? Suppose we don’t just improve animal welfare slightly, but create the ideal future where animals are cared for. If total utilitarianism is correct, then what’s to stop us from creating a world where there are even more animals alive than today, but most are living genuinely good lives? Perhaps that’s thinking a bit far ahead, but I just see no reason to think that CAFOS are the best we can get and we shouldn’t aim for something else, when applying maximizing utilitarianism.
I know it’s standard in the literature to consider scenarios with a binary option, but I don’t see why we should, even within maximizing utilitarianism. In any real-life situation, you always have more options. This is especially true if we consider different time horizions.
In the situation you’re focusing on, CAFOS might have higher aggregate welfare than whatever would replace them right now. But what about in 20 years? What about in 100? Suppose we don’t just improve animal welfare slightly, but create the ideal future where animals are cared for. If total utilitarianism is correct, then what’s to stop us from creating a world where there are even more animals alive than today, but most are living genuinely good lives? Perhaps that’s thinking a bit far ahead, but I just see no reason to think that CAFOS are the best we can get and we shouldn’t aim for something else, when applying maximizing utilitarianism.