= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MugaSofer comments on [link] SMBC on utilitarianism and vegatarianism. - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (69)
Um, yes?
Why?
Some methods of dying are more drawn out and painful than others. Given that no rancher has ever killed their animals with a method anywhere near as bad as old age, that's not really a point against ranching.
I think you just answered your own question.
My original point was that if creating people who are doomed to die of old age is okay, then creating people who die by whatever method of execution is convenient is okay. If both methods of death are the same, then this works. If old age is worse, the argument works better. As such, my original point still stands.
Also, with the exception of incredibly drawn out methods of dying (such as old age, chronic illness, and virtually nothing else), I don't think the pain of death is comparable to the opportunity cost of not living. As such, it doesn't really matter much which death is worse.
So you're OK with being tortured by matrix lords?
More to the point, I don't think not existing is an opportunity cost. Who would it be a cost to?
There are possible ways to die that are worse than old age. They are not how you are going to die if you're raised as food.
You. It would be good for you if you existed, and it cannot be good for you if you don't exist. It can't be bad for you either, but opportunity costs aren't real costs. They're what you get when you set something else as a baseline.
... point.
Surely dying young has a higher opportunity cost than dying of old age, regardless of other costs?
True, but it's still lower than the opportunity cost of not being born at all.
So you admit killing animals for food is wrong, but claim vegetarianism is worse because it creates less lives?
That sounds wrong. If there was a weird cult that birthed lots of children and killed them painlessly at 18, I would try to shut it down.
Huh?
I'm saying that raising people for food would be better than not raising them at all (so long as their lives are worth living).
I'm given to understand that on factory farms, animals lives are not worth living. As such, vegetarianism is good.