I’m not really concerned with whether animals are being exploited by humans anymore than I am the same of plants or fungi. I do think animals shouldn’t suffer because I consider pain to be of negative utility even when experienced by non-persons. With that said, I don’t think the goal of reducing or eliminating animal suffering is better-served by the total elimination of livestock than by ensuring humane farming practice. On the off-chance it wasn’t obvious, I don’t think the utility calculation is clear-cut because of the aforementioned problem of wild animals suffering.
Would you rather live a normal life and at some point be mauled to death, or live your entire life in a prison and at some point be killed more painlessly?
Yes, animals suffer and die in the wild. They also suffer and die in captivity, just in different measures, but I would argue they suffer more as farm animals.
If by “normal life” you mean a life riddled with far more anxiety and danger than I currently have, then I guess it would depend on the prison, but I’m leaning towards prison. This is particularly true if I were to lack boredom and the overbearing curiosity that humans have. Turns out, most animals (especially herbivores) don’t get bored and don’t experience curiosity in the same way humans do. It’s almost like we’re different species with different brains.
Also, most animals aren’t people, and my answer doesn’t actually change the utility values.
Maybe you should look into why it’s bad to be ableist, asshole. I’m autistic, not psychopathic; I use logic when approaching abstract ethical problems. Fuck you.
I’m not really concerned with whether animals are being exploited by humans anymore than I am the same of plants or fungi. I do think animals shouldn’t suffer because I consider pain to be of negative utility even when experienced by non-persons. With that said, I don’t think the goal of reducing or eliminating animal suffering is better-served by the total elimination of livestock than by ensuring humane farming practice. On the off-chance it wasn’t obvious, I don’t think the utility calculation is clear-cut because of the aforementioned problem of wild animals suffering.
Would you rather live a normal life and at some point be mauled to death, or live your entire life in a prison and at some point be killed more painlessly?
Yes, animals suffer and die in the wild. They also suffer and die in captivity, just in different measures, but I would argue they suffer more as farm animals.
If by “normal life” you mean a life riddled with far more anxiety and danger than I currently have, then I guess it would depend on the prison, but I’m leaning towards prison. This is particularly true if I were to lack boredom and the overbearing curiosity that humans have. Turns out, most animals (especially herbivores) don’t get bored and don’t experience curiosity in the same way humans do. It’s almost like we’re different species with different brains.
Also, most animals aren’t people, and my answer doesn’t actually change the utility values.
No, not at all, it’s the safest life available to them, in terms of likelihood for disease and life expectancy.
If you really want prison, it’s available to you and you do get food and medical care free.
Herbivores still get bored and try to escape, so they probably don’t love it.
I would love a source that they don’t though. It’s my understanding that that’s why zoos are hard to run.
maybe try getting a professional to look into that psychopathy of yours
Maybe you should look into why it’s bad to be ableist, asshole. I’m autistic, not psychopathic; I use logic when approaching abstract ethical problems. Fuck you.