To the extent which reducing demand for chicken prevents or delays the slaughtering of existing chickens, I don’t see why there is an asymmetry. I place positive value on chickens living their chicken lives (when those lives are net-positive, whatever that means). Go beyond that and you get into population ethics.
But more importantly, I think this post uses the term “good action” strictly to mean “action which has positive expected value,” while the common usage of “good” is broader and can include actions which are merely less negative than an alternative.
To the extent which reducing demand for chicken prevents or delays the slaughtering of existing chickens, I don’t see why there is an asymmetry. I place positive value on chickens living their chicken lives (when those lives are net-positive, whatever that means). Go beyond that and you get into population ethics.
But more importantly, I think this post uses the term “good action” strictly to mean “action which has positive expected value,” while the common usage of “good” is broader and can include actions which are merely less negative than an alternative.