michael vassar: The situation is more symmetrical than that, I think.

The babyeaters, I imagine, don't like suffering either. That is, I doubt they would inflict suffering on their children outside of the winnowing, and would likely act to prevent suffering where possible. But, while suffering is certainly bad, it would be far worse to violate the much higher moral value of eating the young--that imperative is far greater than some suffering, no matter how great, isn't it?

Humans, of course, don't like suffering. They certainly wouldn't inflict it needlessly. But eliminating a little bit of suffering isn't necessarily worth what it would take--altering ourselves, perhaps, and losing our humanity in the process. And besides, who are they to decide for us? Humanity's moral right to self-determination is far more important than some minor suffering... right?