âThereâs no life bad enough for us to try to actively extinguish it when the subject itself canât express a will for thatâ
I agree something seems very bad intuitively about trying to reduce the numbers of wild animals via killing them, but this seems too strong to me. What about a case where a pet dog is d in terrible pain, but will live a few more weeks? Most people seem to regard it as better for the dog to have it painlessly killed at that point. I guess that could be wrong, but I am skeptical. (I agree that human lives specifically can be net positive for their subjects overall despite featuring strongly more pain than pleasure, but I feel like that might depend precisely on the fact that humans can form thoughts like âI am glad to be aliveâ in such circumstances.)
I agree with your example, but I think even if my wording was too strong the point stands.
I mean, youâd at least take the dog to a vet first, right? This is a last resort? While with the shrimp weâre not thinking about this similarly at all and just deciding remotely.
âThereâs no life bad enough for us to try to actively extinguish it when the subject itself canât express a will for thatââholding this view while also thinking that itâs good to prevent the existence of factory farmed chickens would need some explaining IMO.
Also, the claim that Michaelâs line of reasoning is âweird and badâ seems to imply that it being âweirdâ should count against it in some way, just as it being âbadâ should count against it. But why/âhow exactly? After all, from most peopleâs perspective caring about shrimp at all is weird.
âThereâs no life bad enough for us to try to actively extinguish it when the subject itself canât express a will for thatâ
I agree something seems very bad intuitively about trying to reduce the numbers of wild animals via killing them, but this seems too strong to me. What about a case where a pet dog is d in terrible pain, but will live a few more weeks? Most people seem to regard it as better for the dog to have it painlessly killed at that point. I guess that could be wrong, but I am skeptical. (I agree that human lives specifically can be net positive for their subjects overall despite featuring strongly more pain than pleasure, but I feel like that might depend precisely on the fact that humans can form thoughts like âI am glad to be aliveâ in such circumstances.)
I agree with your example, but I think even if my wording was too strong the point stands.
I mean, youâd at least take the dog to a vet first, right? This is a last resort? While with the shrimp weâre not thinking about this similarly at all and just deciding remotely.
Yeah, I agree the cases seem very different.
âThereâs no life bad enough for us to try to actively extinguish it when the subject itself canât express a will for thatââholding this view while also thinking that itâs good to prevent the existence of factory farmed chickens would need some explaining IMO.
Also, the claim that Michaelâs line of reasoning is âweird and badâ seems to imply that it being âweirdâ should count against it in some way, just as it being âbadâ should count against it. But why/âhow exactly? After all, from most peopleâs perspective caring about shrimp at all is weird.
Agreed that this seems nonsensical on its face.