= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
jkaufman comments on Arguments Against Speciesism - 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 (474)
Is this because you expect the torture wouldn't be as bad if that happened or because you would care less about yourself in that state? Or a combination?
What if you were killed immediately afterwards, so long term memories wouldn't come into play?
If I had the mental capacity of a chicken it would not be bad to torture me, both because I wouldn't matter morally. I also wouldn't be "me" anymore in any meaningful sense.
If you offered me the choice between:
A) 50% chance you are tortured and then released, 50% chance you are killed immediately
B) 50% chance you are tortured and then killed, 50% chance you are released immediately
I would strongly prefer B. Is that what you're asking?
If not morally, do the two situations not seem equivalent in terms of your non-moral preference for either? In other words, would you prefer one over the other in purely self interested terms?
I was just making the point that if your only reason for thinking that it would be worse for you to be tortured now was that you would suffer more overall through long term memories we could just stipulate that you would be killed after in both situations so long term memories wouldn't be a factor.
I'm sorry, I'm confused. Which two situations?
I see. Makes sense. I was giving long term memory formation an example of a way you could remove part of my self and decrease how much I objected to being tortured, but it's not the only way.
A) Being tortured as you are now
B) Having your IQ and cognitive abilities lowered then being tortured.
EDIT:
I am asking because it is useful to consider pure self interest because it seems like a failure of a moral theory if it suggests people act outside of their self interest without some compensating goodness. If I want to eat an apple but my moral theory says that shouldn't even though doing so wouldn't harm anyone else, that seems like a point against that moral theory.
Different cognitive abilities would matter in some ways for how much suffering is actually experienced but not as much as most people think. There are also situations where it seems like it could increase the amount an animal suffers by. While a chicken is being tortured it would not really be able to hope that the situation will change.
Strong preference for (B), having my cognitive abilities lowered to the point that there's no longer anyone there to experience the torture.