3 ms·
It's specifically talking about ethical consequentalism, which is related to utilitarianism -- the idea that you should act in a way to maximize happiness and m
by cjbprime 10y ago
It's specifically talking about ethical consequentalism, which is related to utilitarianism -- the idea that you should act in a way to maximize happiness and minimize suffering.
Some vegetarians are not consequentialists, and so they can reject this argument for the reason you describe, but I know many who are.
- TillE 10y agoI've been around a lot of hardcore vegans, and literally none of them would subscribe to the bizarre abstract philosophy of "minimizing suffering" in the wild. It's an absurdity. The idea is to remove human causes of destruction, not to intervene in nature to manufacture some kind of utopia. Again, absurd. Essentially nobody would actually believe this, aside from philosophical masturbation.
- schoen 10y agoI am a vegan and I believe there's an important qualitative distinction between the suffering that we cause and the suffering that we fail to prevent, but I still think the suffering in nature is bad and would like to see a way that we could reduce it. There must be different cultures and views within veganism. :-)
- cjbprime 10y agoThat's the point of the paper, though, right? The paper compels them to explain why they find it okay to dismiss the idea as absurd, if they want to consider themselves as being ethically consistent regarding animal suffering.