RE: Utilitarianism and Population Ethics
April 24, 2016 at 3:37 am
(This post was last modified: April 24, 2016 at 3:39 am by bennyboy.)
Okay, Evie.
You're not vegetarian, that's fine. So you in fact do not prioritize mimimization of suffering, since your meat-eating contributes to a great deal of suffering. If all humans died, in fact, there would very likely be a net reduction of suffering in the world, as animals don't naturally grow stacked in boxes a hundred feet high.
How about chocolate? Do you eat it? Drink coffee? Wear bargain-priced clothing? If you're on the wrong side of any of these questions, you are involved in human suffering, as well, as is everyone else here.
Now, I'm not being belligerent just to pick at you--I'm as guilty of causing suffering as you are, and maybe more so. But I'm curious how your ethical philosophies hold up under scrutiny in the real world: are they as pragmatic as words like "utilititarian" really make them seem?
You're not vegetarian, that's fine. So you in fact do not prioritize mimimization of suffering, since your meat-eating contributes to a great deal of suffering. If all humans died, in fact, there would very likely be a net reduction of suffering in the world, as animals don't naturally grow stacked in boxes a hundred feet high.
How about chocolate? Do you eat it? Drink coffee? Wear bargain-priced clothing? If you're on the wrong side of any of these questions, you are involved in human suffering, as well, as is everyone else here.
Now, I'm not being belligerent just to pick at you--I'm as guilty of causing suffering as you are, and maybe more so. But I'm curious how your ethical philosophies hold up under scrutiny in the real world: are they as pragmatic as words like "utilititarian" really make them seem?
