4 ms·
No, because I never claimed that preventing suffering is the only goal. Just add one more goal which is potentially experiencing pleasure then you can justify m
by nsonha 5y ago
No, because I never claimed that preventing suffering is the only goal. Just add one more goal which is potentially experiencing pleasure then you can justify most lives, well except that of those pigs
- pharke 5y agoIn which case it becomes an optimization problem where you have to find the optimal number of living beings to exterminate in order to provide the maximal amount of pleasure for those remaining. Not any better.
- nsonha 5y ago> find the optimal number of living beings to exterminate you are conflating birth control with "exterminate", not the same thing. Birth control has its roles, does it not? > in order to provide the maximal amount of pleasure for those remaining. I never said that, pleasure is an example, society is optimized for way more variables that suffering and pleasure. In the context of farm animals, it looks like the only purpose for the pigs to exist is to be food, then when the food is over-produced and wasted, then you have to question why have that many of them born into a miserable life then die pointlessly. > Not any better just say it like that, no explanation? What is not good? Optimization?