Lumifer comments on When should an Effective Altruist be vegetarian? - Less Wrong

27 Post author: KatjaGrace 23 November 2014 05:25AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (81)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: RobertWiblin 24 November 2014 06:58:58PM 9 points [-]

"Isn't it suspicious that people who make the strange claim that animals count as objects of moral concern also make the strange claim that animal lives aren't worth living"

No, this makes perfect sense. 1. They decide animals are objects of moral concern. 2. Look into the conditions they live in, and decide that in some cases they are worse than not being alive. 3. Decide it's wrong to fund expansion of a system that holds animals in conditions that are worse than not being alive at all.

Comment author: Lumifer 24 November 2014 07:20:10PM *  2 points [-]

Isn't a direct consequence of (2) is that those animals are better off dead than alive and so, if the opportunity to (relatively costlessly) kill some of them arises, one should do so?

Comment author: DanielLC 24 November 2014 10:09:25PM 4 points [-]

Is that supposed to be reductio ad absurdum? Euthanizing feral pets is standard. I'd do the same for livestock.

Comment author: Lumifer 24 November 2014 10:18:48PM 1 point [-]

I don't know whether we'd get to absurdum, so far I'm trying to figure out how far you (that is, the general-vegetarian "you") are willing to take this reasoning.

Comment author: RobertWiblin 24 November 2014 08:24:11PM 1 point [-]

If you can't otherwise improve their lives, the death is painless, and murder isn't independently bad.

Comment author: Lumifer 24 November 2014 08:51:26PM 1 point [-]

Well, not quite. If you think being dead has positive utility for this creature, this positive utility is not necessarily small. If so, you need to weight the issues in killing against that positive utility.

For example, let's take "death is painless" -- actually, if the negative utility of the painful death is not as great as the positive utility of dying, you would still be justified and obligated to impose that painful death upon the creature as the net result is positive utility.

Comment author: RobertWiblin 24 November 2014 10:27:46PM 1 point [-]

I was just giving what would be sufficient conditions, but they aren't all necessarily necessary.