Tangentially related, but how would you respond to the argument that utilitarians must be committed to some form of anti-natalism? At the very least it seems to me the case for unimaginable suffering in the case of both wild and food animals is simply overwhelming. I would rather never have existed than be a wild or domesticated food animal if the choice were given to me. Nature often strikes me as a sort of utilitarian hell.
I think we would have to weigh the animal considerations against human considerations though since, for example, if all wild/food animals stopped existing, humanity probably couldn't be sustained. And it's not clear to me that humanity on its own generates enough positive utility to outweigh animal suffering. It's honestly not even clear to me that humanity on its own generates enough positive utility to outweigh insect suffering alone.
Other way around. Happiness is reducible to rights. We would hold that you shouldn’t kill someone even if God (me) told you they would experience -0.01 utility in the future. Or take forced wireheading, or many other examples. At best this just begs the question of util being true.
> Concentric Circles.
You know why this is complete nonsense. Adding the word “corresponding” to the formulation doesn’t help. In fact it makes it worse, as a “corresponding” choice to the people in the next circle would be a choice that implicated 99 more circles, same as a choice 1. That’s logically contradictory, and this is null.
Happiness being reducible rights mean that our account of rights is explainable in terms of happiness. You haven't argued that happiness is reducible to rights, just that rights matter. I'll write an article about your so called counterexample at some point.
I deny obviously that the concentric circles thing is nonsense.
Tangentially related, but how would you respond to the argument that utilitarians must be committed to some form of anti-natalism? At the very least it seems to me the case for unimaginable suffering in the case of both wild and food animals is simply overwhelming. I would rather never have existed than be a wild or domesticated food animal if the choice were given to me. Nature often strikes me as a sort of utilitarian hell.
I agree we should be utilitarians about wild and food animals, but I don't think the same is true about humans.
I think we would have to weigh the animal considerations against human considerations though since, for example, if all wild/food animals stopped existing, humanity probably couldn't be sustained. And it's not clear to me that humanity on its own generates enough positive utility to outweigh animal suffering. It's honestly not even clear to me that humanity on its own generates enough positive utility to outweigh insect suffering alone.
I think it does if we consider the vast possible future utility, described here.
https://existential-risk.org/concept
> Rights are reducible to happiness.
Other way around. Happiness is reducible to rights. We would hold that you shouldn’t kill someone even if God (me) told you they would experience -0.01 utility in the future. Or take forced wireheading, or many other examples. At best this just begs the question of util being true.
> Concentric Circles.
You know why this is complete nonsense. Adding the word “corresponding” to the formulation doesn’t help. In fact it makes it worse, as a “corresponding” choice to the people in the next circle would be a choice that implicated 99 more circles, same as a choice 1. That’s logically contradictory, and this is null.
Happiness being reducible rights mean that our account of rights is explainable in terms of happiness. You haven't argued that happiness is reducible to rights, just that rights matter. I'll write an article about your so called counterexample at some point.
I deny obviously that the concentric circles thing is nonsense.