> big improvements for animal welfare
Is it? It might reduce the amount of animals killed, sure, but it won't improve the well-being of the ones that are still raised.
Is it? It might reduce the amount of animals killed, sure, but it won't improve the well-being of the ones that are still raised.
I don't get why that would be a better measure?
The reality is probably somewhere in the middle.
I think such paradoxes demonstrate we probably need a completely different approach than anything we've done so far.
Utilitarianism feels to me like Mill & Bentham discovered basic arithmetic and didn't even realise there was more to maths than that.
You see a paradox and say "well that's not right, we should do something about it." This has been the story since Kant, but for his part, everyone seems to forget that he doesn't ultimately "solve" his antinomies, he just leaves them as conclusions, "effects of pure reason."
It seems way more unreasonable to assert that, in fact, there is some consistent, complete ethical framework out there, but we havent found it yet, than it is to just accept that some kernels of truth or sense are not formalizable in the classical sense.
> It seems way more unreasonable to assert that, in fact, there is some consistent, complete ethical framework out there, but we havent found it yet, than it is to just accept that some kernels of truth or sense are not formalizable in the classical sense.
We can prove that complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics is impossible. An equivalent proof for ethics would itself be useful.
However, we do not need to concern ourselves with infinite sets etc. for ethics the way we do with natural numbers, as there's only relatively (in mathematical terms) small number of real people to interact with or influence the lives of.
We may not be able to reach an optimal outcome with even a limited n, if it turns out to be akin to P != NP. But even knowing that, would itself be useful.
The problem I have with Utilitarianism isn't any of these things, it's that it's simply trying to maximise how much utility there is in the world, then immediately tripping over itself because the terms "utility", "maximise" and "the world" aren't well-defined, and the way it is introduced is simply adding up.
If average welfare of humans is all that matters, then one happy human living alone in the universe is the equivalent of a million happy humans.
If sum of "welfare" is all that matters, then you can argue an exceptionally large number of people being tortured indefinitely is better than a happy person.
Factored by how cute the animal is. As a producer of plants for human consumption, it's quite obvious that orders of magnitude more animals are harmed in that process than are ever harmed in traditional meat production. But they're mostly ugly insects, so nobody cares.
Let's be real. If demand for meat declines, producers will have to double down on "factories" in order to remain solvent.
I went through a period of vegetarianism (for health reasons, not directly for ethics), and once I started eating meat again, 1. I eat a lot less, which 2. means that I can be much more intentional about sourcing it.
Right now the bulk of the meat that I eat at home throughout the year comes from 1 or 2 animals that are locally sourced and butchered (normally I share a portion of a pig and a cow), and the occasional wild caught fish. The meat is tastier, and I can go see the actual animals at the farm if I so choose. They are not factory farmed, and the price per pound is about the same as buying industrial meat at the grocery store since I am buying directly from the farmer, and paying a local processor for their services.
As things wane in popularity it might be true that they become more of a commodity, or it might be true that they become more of a niche product where people care more.
I would like to think that if meat consumption becomes more of a treat than an everyday thing, that people would treat it as such, and go out of their way to eat something that tastes better.
Food for thought?
It's reported it reduces a series of impulsive behaviours. Would it extend to sex? If people are less willing to have sex, maybe broad consumption of the medicine will further drop fertility rates.