Xodarap comments on Why Eat Less Meat? - LessWrong

48 Post author: peter_hurford 23 July 2013 09:30PM

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

Comments (513)

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

Comment author: BlueSun 23 July 2013 10:08:13PM *  2 points [-]

A question I have is how to evaluate the morality of the two options:

  • A) Make it so that an animal is born, then later cause it considerable suffering
  • B) Change the conditions so that the animal never exists

If everyone went vegetarian, the animal population would likely be greatly diminished and it isn't obvious to me that I'd choose option B over option A if I were on the menu. Are there some standard objections to the idea that option A is better than option B?

One quick objection might be that it proves too much. If John Beatmykids told me he wouldn't have kids unless he was permitted to beat them, I wouldn't give him a pass to beat any future children. Another objection might be that there's always a choice C, but here I don't see another option as realistic.

Comment author: Xodarap 23 July 2013 10:49:46PM *  3 points [-]

This is a great argument, and is known as the "Logic of the Larder" (for reasons I have never comprehended). This paper goes into more detail than you probably care about; the main point is that your guess:

the animal population would likely be greatly diminished

Isn't generally true, because wild animals have a much greater density than farm animals.