5 ms·

I love articles like this that challenge the status quo of morality. I find my self asking the question, "Would I rather save a billion shrimp or one human?" an

I love articles like this that challenge the status quo of morality. I find my self asking the question, "Would I rather save a billion shrimp or one human?" and I honestly think I'm siding on the human. I'm not saying that answer is "correct". It's always good to think about these things and the point the author makes about shrimp being a test of our morality because they're so different is a good one.

barefoot 2y ago
How about one million kittens or one human?
- HansardExpert 2y ago
  Still the human. How about one million humans or one kitten? Where is the cut-off point for you>?
- dartos 2y ago
  Where did the kittens come from? If they were spawned into existence for this thought experiment, then the human, probably. But if even one of those kittens were mine, entire cities could be leveled before I let anyone hurt my kitten.
  - some_random 2y ago
    This brings up an interesting point, our view of morality is heavily skewed. If you made me choose between something bad happening to my partner or 10 random people, I would save my partner every time and I expect every normal person in the world to choose the same.
    - dartos 2y ago
      Well humans aren’t perfectly rational. I wouldn’t think it moral to save my kitten over a random non-evil person, but I’d still do it.
      - Iulioh 2y ago
        It is a rational choice tho. It wouldn't just hurt your partner, it would hurt you. We know that following a "objective morality" the 10 people would be a better choice but it would hurt (indirectly) you.
        dartos 2y ago
        You’re right. Maybe rational was the wrong word. Humans aren’t perfectly objective.
  - hansvm 2y ago
    Also, where did the human come from? Are they already on their deathbed, prolonged in this thought experiment for only a few fleeting moments? Were they themselves a murderer?
    - dartos 2y ago
      None of that matters if my kitten is in danger!
  - GJim 2y ago
    > entire cities could be leveled before I let anyone hurt my kitten Allowing that kitten to live will cause untold suffering for other small mammals. You have the power to stop that suffering!
- saalweachter 2y ago
  Collectively we kill and eat around a billion rabbits a year, around 8 million in the US. They aren't kittens, but they do have a similar level of fluffy cuteness. It's not quite "one million to one"; the meat from 1 million rabbits meets the caloric needs of around 2750 people for 1 year.
- mihaic 2y ago
  In that case I actually ask "Who's the human?", and in about 80% of the time I'd pick the human.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  One cat versus many humans. My spending on my cat makes the answer clear.
himinlomax 2y ago
The best way to save even more shrimps would be to campaign for and subsidize whaling. They are shrimp-mass-murdering machines. What's a few whales versus billions of shrimps?
- xipho 2y ago
  You didn't read the article nor follow the argument, just jumped in. It's about suffering shrimps, not saving shrimps.
  - some_random 2y ago
    Do shrimp not suffer from being consumed by whales?
    - eightysixfour 2y ago
      In comparison to having their eyeballs crushed but left alive, or slowly frozen to death?
      - some_random 2y ago
        The trade off here is eliminating mutilation, going from Pain + Death to just Death, or in the case of the whales, going from Death to normal, beautiful shrimp Life. I don't really have any interest in doing shrimp quality of life math this morning but there's clearly something there.
  - himinlomax 2y ago
    I did. It was a whole lot of nothing. In any case, I just wanted to point out that if you cared about the welfare of damn arthropods, you're going nowhere really fast. Consider this: the quickest, surest, most efficient way and ONLY way to reduce all suffering on earth to nothing forever and ever is a good ole nuclear holocaust.
    - xipho 2y ago
anothername12 2y ago
It’s the trolley problem https://neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems/ https://neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems/
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
BenthamsBulldog 2y ago
Thanks for the kind words! I agree lots of people would value a human more than any number of shrimp. Now, in the article, I'm talking about which is worse--extreme suffering for one human or extreme suffering for millions of shrimp. So then the question is: can the common sense verdict be defended? What about shrimp is it that makes it so that their pain is of negligible importance compared to humans? Sure they aren't smart, but being dumb doesn't seem to make your pain less bad (hurting babies and mentally disabled people is still very very bad).
- theonething 2y ago
  For babies and mentally disabled people, we absolutely know beyond any doubt that they are capable of feeling pain, intense, blood curdling pain. I don't think we can say the same of shrimp. That's why humane killing of cattle (with piston guns to the head) is widely practiced, but nothing of the sort for crabs, oysters, etc. We know for sure cattle feel pain so we do something about it.
  - BenthamsBulldog 2y ago
    Sure but if we're not sure then the possible infliction of huge amounts of horrendous suffering on trillions of them is quite serious. If there's even a 5% chance that shrimp feel pain as intensely as humans, the SWP is an excellent bet.
joegibbs 2y ago
The whole idea of morality is totally arbitrary and only exists because we say it does. If you were an Aztec then sacrificing people to Huitzilopochtli was actually moral, and if you were alive two thousand years ago nobody would have batted an eye at owning slaves. In reality, nobody would actually choose to save the life of 34 crustaceans over the life of a human, even if killing the prawn results in 102% of the suffering of killing the human. It's the same with all the EA stuff like prioritising X trillion potential humans that may exist in the future over actual people who exist now - you can get as granular as you want and mess around with probability to say anything. Maybe it's good to grow brains in vats and feed them heroin - that'll increase total happiness! Maybe we should judge someone who has killed enough flies the same as a murderer! Maybe our goals for the future should be based on the quadrillion future sentient creatures that will evolve from today's coconut crabs!
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

barefoot 2y ago

How about one million kittens or one human?

HansardExpert 2y ago
Still the human. How about one million humans or one kitten? Where is the cut-off point for you>?
dartos 2y ago
Where did the kittens come from? If they were spawned into existence for this thought experiment, then the human, probably. But if even one of those kittens were mine, entire cities could be leveled before I let anyone hurt my kitten.
- some_random 2y ago
  This brings up an interesting point, our view of morality is heavily skewed. If you made me choose between something bad happening to my partner or 10 random people, I would save my partner every time and I expect every normal person in the world to choose the same.
  - dartos 2y ago
    Well humans aren’t perfectly rational. I wouldn’t think it moral to save my kitten over a random non-evil person, but I’d still do it.
    - Iulioh 2y ago
      It is a rational choice tho. It wouldn't just hurt your partner, it would hurt you. We know that following a "objective morality" the 10 people would be a better choice but it would hurt (indirectly) you.
      - dartos 2y ago
        You’re right. Maybe rational was the wrong word. Humans aren’t perfectly objective.
- hansvm 2y ago
  Also, where did the human come from? Are they already on their deathbed, prolonged in this thought experiment for only a few fleeting moments? Were they themselves a murderer?
  - dartos 2y ago
    None of that matters if my kitten is in danger!
- GJim 2y ago
  > entire cities could be leveled before I let anyone hurt my kitten Allowing that kitten to live will cause untold suffering for other small mammals. You have the power to stop that suffering!
saalweachter 2y ago
Collectively we kill and eat around a billion rabbits a year, around 8 million in the US. They aren't kittens, but they do have a similar level of fluffy cuteness. It's not quite "one million to one"; the meat from 1 million rabbits meets the caloric needs of around 2750 people for 1 year.
mihaic 2y ago
In that case I actually ask "Who's the human?", and in about 80% of the time I'd pick the human.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
One cat versus many humans. My spending on my cat makes the answer clear.

himinlomax 2y ago

The best way to save even more shrimps would be to campaign for and subsidize whaling. They are shrimp-mass-murdering machines. What's a few whales versus billions of shrimps?

xipho 2y ago
You didn't read the article nor follow the argument, just jumped in. It's about suffering shrimps, not saving shrimps.
- some_random 2y ago
  Do shrimp not suffer from being consumed by whales?
  - eightysixfour 2y ago
    In comparison to having their eyeballs crushed but left alive, or slowly frozen to death?
    - some_random 2y ago
      The trade off here is eliminating mutilation, going from Pain + Death to just Death, or in the case of the whales, going from Death to normal, beautiful shrimp Life. I don't really have any interest in doing shrimp quality of life math this morning but there's clearly something there.
- himinlomax 2y ago
  I did. It was a whole lot of nothing. In any case, I just wanted to point out that if you cared about the welfare of damn arthropods, you're going nowhere really fast. Consider this: the quickest, surest, most efficient way and ONLY way to reduce all suffering on earth to nothing forever and ever is a good ole nuclear holocaust.
  - xipho 2y ago

anothername12 2y ago

It’s the trolley problem https://neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems/ https://neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems/

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

BenthamsBulldog 2y ago

Thanks for the kind words! I agree lots of people would value a human more than any number of shrimp. Now, in the article, I'm talking about which is worse--extreme suffering for one human or extreme suffering for millions of shrimp. So then the question is: can the common sense verdict be defended? What about shrimp is it that makes it so that their pain is of negligible importance compared to humans? Sure they aren't smart, but being dumb doesn't seem to make your pain less bad (hurting babies and mentally disabled people is still very very bad).

theonething 2y ago
For babies and mentally disabled people, we absolutely know beyond any doubt that they are capable of feeling pain, intense, blood curdling pain. I don't think we can say the same of shrimp. That's why humane killing of cattle (with piston guns to the head) is widely practiced, but nothing of the sort for crabs, oysters, etc. We know for sure cattle feel pain so we do something about it.
- BenthamsBulldog 2y ago
  Sure but if we're not sure then the possible infliction of huge amounts of horrendous suffering on trillions of them is quite serious. If there's even a 5% chance that shrimp feel pain as intensely as humans, the SWP is an excellent bet.

joegibbs 2y ago

The whole idea of morality is totally arbitrary and only exists because we say it does. If you were an Aztec then sacrificing people to Huitzilopochtli was actually moral, and if you were alive two thousand years ago nobody would have batted an eye at owning slaves. In reality, nobody would actually choose to save the life of 34 crustaceans over the life of a human, even if killing the prawn results in 102% of the suffering of killing the human. It's the same with all the EA stuff like prioritising X trillion potential humans that may exist in the future over actual people who exist now - you can get as granular as you want and mess around with probability to say anything. Maybe it's good to grow brains in vats and feed them heroin - that'll increase total happiness! Maybe we should judge someone who has killed enough flies the same as a murderer! Maybe our goals for the future should be based on the quadrillion future sentient creatures that will evolve from today's coconut crabs!

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]