Extending human ethics toward non-humans is a questionable endeavor at best. That being said, I personally don’t like extra unnecessary suffering, which is why I prefer eating humanely raised and killed animals.
Taking the minimization of suffering to its logical conclusion, however, animals suffer in the wild without human intervention, so the most humane thing to do would be to exterminate them all. This would prevent any future suffering entirely.
Surely you see a problem with such a utilitarian approach?
deciding to kill something, because you think it is best for them
My argument is that from a utilitarian viewpoint it’s not just best for them, but it prevents future suffering for all their offspring. Not just the suffering of one, but of untold millions.
Obviously I don’t think a utilitarian approach like this is the right way to proceed.
Extending human ethics toward non-humans is a questionable endeavor at best. That being said, I personally don’t like extra unnecessary suffering, which is why I prefer eating humanely raised and killed animals.
Taking the minimization of suffering to its logical conclusion, however, animals suffer in the wild without human intervention, so the most humane thing to do would be to exterminate them all. This would prevent any future suffering entirely.
Surely you see a problem with such a utilitarian approach?
deleted by creator
My argument is that from a utilitarian viewpoint it’s not just best for them, but it prevents future suffering for all their offspring. Not just the suffering of one, but of untold millions.
Obviously I don’t think a utilitarian approach like this is the right way to proceed.
deleted by creator
WILL happen in the future. Is guaranteed to happen in the future.
deleted by creator
Practically speaking.