I agree with your example, but I think even if my wording was too strong the point stands.
I mean, you’d at least take the dog to a vet first, right? This is a last resort? While with the shrimp we’re not thinking about this similarly at all and just deciding remotely.
“There’s no life bad enough for us to try to actively extinguish it when the subject itself can’t express a will for that”—holding this view while also thinking that it’s good to prevent the existence of factory farmed chickens would need some explaining IMO.
Also, the claim that Michael’s line of reasoning is “weird and bad” seems to imply that it being “weird” should count against it in some way, just as it being “bad” should count against it. But why/how exactly? After all, from most people’s perspective caring about shrimp at all is weird.
I agree with your example, but I think even if my wording was too strong the point stands.
I mean, you’d at least take the dog to a vet first, right? This is a last resort? While with the shrimp we’re not thinking about this similarly at all and just deciding remotely.
Yeah, I agree the cases seem very different.
“There’s no life bad enough for us to try to actively extinguish it when the subject itself can’t express a will for that”—holding this view while also thinking that it’s good to prevent the existence of factory farmed chickens would need some explaining IMO.
Also, the claim that Michael’s line of reasoning is “weird and bad” seems to imply that it being “weird” should count against it in some way, just as it being “bad” should count against it. But why/how exactly? After all, from most people’s perspective caring about shrimp at all is weird.
Agreed that this seems nonsensical on its face.