Hey Vasco, As a founder of One Step for Animals, you don’t need to convince me we should be looking to help chickens. :-) It is when we say that X chickens = 1 human, or Y mosquitoes = 1 human, or Z electrons = 1 human—that’s where I get off the train (as I lay out in Losing My Religions). Thanks again and keep up the great work!
I think the relevant chapter from Losing My Religions is “Biting the Philosophical Bullet”. From I understand, you think the Repugnant Conclusion (RC) is sufficiently against your intuitions for the total view (which implies the RC) to be wrong.
The RC follows from 3 premises (see here). I would be curious to know the extent to which (and why) you disagree with each of them.
Hey Vasco,
As a founder of One Step for Animals, you don’t need to convince me we should be looking to help chickens. :-)
It is when we say that X chickens = 1 human, or Y mosquitoes = 1 human, or Z electrons = 1 human—that’s where I get off the train (as I lay out in Losing My Religions).
Thanks again and keep up the great work!
Ah, I know I need not convince you of that!
I think the relevant chapter from Losing My Religions is “Biting the Philosophical Bullet”. From I understand, you think the Repugnant Conclusion (RC) is sufficiently against your intuitions for the total view (which implies the RC) to be wrong.
The RC follows from 3 premises (see here). I would be curious to know the extent to which (and why) you disagree with each of them.