4 ms·

Is it such a great thing to be born that we are doing something good for certain pigs by causing them to come into existence?

usrusr 8y ago
Ending all life would end all suffering, it's one of those dangerous philosophical ideas we prefer not to think about to often. The other extreme would be "every sperm is sacred" and I firmly believe that both should be avoided, but only for pigs.
- usrusr 8y ago
  That should be "but not only for pigs", obviously. Otherwise it would be a very interesting standpoint.
jpeanuts 8y ago
Relevant comic: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/existence https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/existence
core-questions 8y ago
Is it such a great thing to be born that we are doing something good for our children by causing them to come into existence? I mean, c'mon. The only way for there to be something good, or great, from a first-person experience, is for there to be a first person to actually do the experiencing. Caveat, of course, bringing something into an existence that is only suffering is probably not so great. This is why we need to treat our food animals well (not to mention our kids!)
- kranner 8y ago
  My intuition is that suffering dominates our lives. This is especially true for animals. So I don’t believe we are doing pigs any favours by giving them life.
  - core-questions 8y ago
    > My intuition is that suffering dominates our lives Maybe your life. I feel pretty good. Have you considered doing things to reduce your suffering? There are a lot of great options. Take a few deep breaths and consider whether it's really as bad as all that. Suffering in the human context is also very relative to tolerance. Experiencing the occasional great suffering (whether physical or emotional) puts your daily aches and pains and disappointments into proper contrast so you can tell that you should learn how to not take them very seriously.
- schoen 8y ago
  David Benatar is the most famous exponent of the opposing view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism Edit: though several weaker views are more common in animal rights advocacy, for instance that being born in order to be raised for food is not a benefit to an animal, that being born in order to be raised for food in a factory farm is not a benefit to an animal, or that being born is a benefit but that conferring a benefit on an animal doesn't make conferring harms on the same animal legitimate or appropriate even if the benefits and harms are structured as a "package deal".
  - core-questions 8y ago
    This is such a patently ridiculous, self-defeating viewpoint. Simple teleology defeats it, in the sense that everyone who holds this view will probably die childless, and will not be very successful at spreading their views generationally. As for the animals - hey, I said I want them treated decently. I don't extend them the same courtesies as I extend to humans because they're not human, and I don't shed a tear for their deaths because to do so is to anthropomorphize them, a quintessentially childish way of viewing the world. > being born in order to be raised for food in a factory farm is not a benefit to an animal Said animal wouldn't exist otherwise, and could not benefit from not existing, so the potential for benefit is always higher on the existence side, even if the probability is very low - it's still higher than a guaranteed 0.
    - schoen 8y ago
      I don't feel like you're really engaging with any of these ideas. > Simple teleology defeats it, in the sense that everyone who holds this view will probably die childless, and will not be very successful at spreading their views generationally. This seems like a particularly raw invocation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum The same reasoning would seem to suggest that religions that successfully encourage people to have many children are most likely to be correct because they provide one method for spreading their views (that is, having children and then teaching them to believe in the religions' doctrines). This is one way that religious views do get spread in the world and one demographic factor in religious belief, but it's hard to see the connection between this and the correctness of each belief as we might otherwise understand correctness.
- mirimir 8y ago
  We also need to treat our food animals well, because eating poorly treated animals is unhealthy. Both physically, and spiritually. Bad chemicals, and bad karma.

usrusr 8y ago

Ending all life would end all suffering, it's one of those dangerous philosophical ideas we prefer not to think about to often. The other extreme would be "every sperm is sacred" and I firmly believe that both should be avoided, but only for pigs.

usrusr 8y ago
That should be "but not only for pigs", obviously. Otherwise it would be a very interesting standpoint.

jpeanuts 8y ago

Relevant comic: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/existence https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/existence

core-questions 8y ago

Is it such a great thing to be born that we are doing something good for our children by causing them to come into existence? I mean, c'mon. The only way for there to be something good, or great, from a first-person experience, is for there to be a first person to actually do the experiencing. Caveat, of course, bringing something into an existence that is only suffering is probably not so great. This is why we need to treat our food animals well (not to mention our kids!)

kranner 8y ago
My intuition is that suffering dominates our lives. This is especially true for animals. So I don’t believe we are doing pigs any favours by giving them life.
- core-questions 8y ago
  > My intuition is that suffering dominates our lives Maybe your life. I feel pretty good. Have you considered doing things to reduce your suffering? There are a lot of great options. Take a few deep breaths and consider whether it's really as bad as all that. Suffering in the human context is also very relative to tolerance. Experiencing the occasional great suffering (whether physical or emotional) puts your daily aches and pains and disappointments into proper contrast so you can tell that you should learn how to not take them very seriously.
schoen 8y ago
David Benatar is the most famous exponent of the opposing view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism Edit: though several weaker views are more common in animal rights advocacy, for instance that being born in order to be raised for food is not a benefit to an animal, that being born in order to be raised for food in a factory farm is not a benefit to an animal, or that being born is a benefit but that conferring a benefit on an animal doesn't make conferring harms on the same animal legitimate or appropriate even if the benefits and harms are structured as a "package deal".
- core-questions 8y ago
  This is such a patently ridiculous, self-defeating viewpoint. Simple teleology defeats it, in the sense that everyone who holds this view will probably die childless, and will not be very successful at spreading their views generationally. As for the animals - hey, I said I want them treated decently. I don't extend them the same courtesies as I extend to humans because they're not human, and I don't shed a tear for their deaths because to do so is to anthropomorphize them, a quintessentially childish way of viewing the world. > being born in order to be raised for food in a factory farm is not a benefit to an animal Said animal wouldn't exist otherwise, and could not benefit from not existing, so the potential for benefit is always higher on the existence side, even if the probability is very low - it's still higher than a guaranteed 0.
  - schoen 8y ago
    I don't feel like you're really engaging with any of these ideas. > Simple teleology defeats it, in the sense that everyone who holds this view will probably die childless, and will not be very successful at spreading their views generationally. This seems like a particularly raw invocation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum The same reasoning would seem to suggest that religions that successfully encourage people to have many children are most likely to be correct because they provide one method for spreading their views (that is, having children and then teaching them to believe in the religions' doctrines). This is one way that religious views do get spread in the world and one demographic factor in religious belief, but it's hard to see the connection between this and the correctness of each belief as we might otherwise understand correctness.
mirimir 8y ago
We also need to treat our food animals well, because eating poorly treated animals is unhealthy. Both physically, and spiritually. Bad chemicals, and bad karma.