I made a comment in a previous article of yours: since you've made previous posts about how to oppose the Save Our Bacon Act, now that it's in the Senate, I think you should make a post about steps you can take. Maybe just repost this: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/vsYphZaBcXpmtNizp/time-sensitive-stop-one-of-biggest-threats-for-animal. I saw this was reposted on Astral Codex Ten and Thing of Things. I think it could be very impactful relative to time invested; you have a large audience and some of them are presumably invested enough in animal welfare to do this action.
You bring up Hershaft's comparison of factory farms to the Holocaust. But the central problem with the Holocaust wasn't that the victims were treated poorly before they were killed. If they had been treated well before being gassed, that wouldn't have solved the problem. The wrong was the killing itself. And yet you (BB) consistently emphasize suffering and poor treatment in your posts about animal agriculture, rather than the more fundamental issue: that we are exploiting and killing animals for our own purposes. Animals have an inherent interest in continuing to live their lives, and treating them kindly before we kill them does nothing to address the fact that we are depriving them of that most basic right.
I'm a utilitarian. If animals really benefitted from being brought into existence, then my best guess would be that the conjunction of their birth and death would be a good thing.
Do you apply the same principle to humans? So if we created a class of servants who were treated quite well before being summarily dispatched, that would be a good thing?
Well, I'd still be opposed to the killing of them. I'd just support actions that lead to the conjunct of their creation and killing. Such actions would benefit their supposed victims--and I don't think it makes much sense to refrain from some action for another's sake if the action leaves them better off.
If this is what it means to be a utilitarian, then I guess I'll never become one. Incidentally, I know Gary Francione's approach has fallen out of favor (if, indeed, it was ever 𝘪𝘯 favor), but his philosophy has always made a lot more sense to me than the alternative approaches to animal exploitation.
It can be, and definitely is, both. Causing suffering followed by killing are two very substantial moral failings.
The moral implications of suffering, either in the holocaust, in raising animals that we butcher, or in life in general, are significant. Every person and animal dies in the end, and we should work to push death further off and reduce suffering during life.
Looked at in a vacuum, if we facilitated the birth of cattle, enabled them to live happy and comfortable lives, and then only slaughtered them for meat with minimum suffering at the latest point in their lives possible, maybe, just maybe, the entire process could be a net positive.
Unfortunately, raising cattle vastly increases the amount of land needed to feed people and comes at the expense of both more efficient methods to feed people and at the expense of wild habitats. In fact, 75% to 80% of farmland is dedicated to animals we butcher and the crops we raise to feed them.
I'm generally pretty sympathetic to analogies between humans and animals, contra those who claim that caring about any aspect of animal welfare is anthropomorphism. But it seems very unlikely to me that a sentient animal's survival instinct is analogous to a sapient animal's expressed desire to continue living in any real sense.
Very hard to prove either way. But since we already have to jump through a byzantine arrangement of hoops just to prove that the deprivation account applies to homo sapiens, it seems that much less likely to apply to animals.
This gave me a headache and made me consider going vegetarian at some point. Good writing
I made a comment in a previous article of yours: since you've made previous posts about how to oppose the Save Our Bacon Act, now that it's in the Senate, I think you should make a post about steps you can take. Maybe just repost this: https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/vsYphZaBcXpmtNizp/time-sensitive-stop-one-of-biggest-threats-for-animal. I saw this was reposted on Astral Codex Ten and Thing of Things. I think it could be very impactful relative to time invested; you have a large audience and some of them are presumably invested enough in animal welfare to do this action.
Yeah will do.
You bring up Hershaft's comparison of factory farms to the Holocaust. But the central problem with the Holocaust wasn't that the victims were treated poorly before they were killed. If they had been treated well before being gassed, that wouldn't have solved the problem. The wrong was the killing itself. And yet you (BB) consistently emphasize suffering and poor treatment in your posts about animal agriculture, rather than the more fundamental issue: that we are exploiting and killing animals for our own purposes. Animals have an inherent interest in continuing to live their lives, and treating them kindly before we kill them does nothing to address the fact that we are depriving them of that most basic right.
I'm a utilitarian. If animals really benefitted from being brought into existence, then my best guess would be that the conjunction of their birth and death would be a good thing.
Do you apply the same principle to humans? So if we created a class of servants who were treated quite well before being summarily dispatched, that would be a good thing?
Well, I'd still be opposed to the killing of them. I'd just support actions that lead to the conjunct of their creation and killing. Such actions would benefit their supposed victims--and I don't think it makes much sense to refrain from some action for another's sake if the action leaves them better off.
If this is what it means to be a utilitarian, then I guess I'll never become one. Incidentally, I know Gary Francione's approach has fallen out of favor (if, indeed, it was ever 𝘪𝘯 favor), but his philosophy has always made a lot more sense to me than the alternative approaches to animal exploitation.
I talk more about this view here https://benthams.substack.com/p/utilitarians-should-stop-dropping?utm_source=publication-search
It can be, and definitely is, both. Causing suffering followed by killing are two very substantial moral failings.
The moral implications of suffering, either in the holocaust, in raising animals that we butcher, or in life in general, are significant. Every person and animal dies in the end, and we should work to push death further off and reduce suffering during life.
Looked at in a vacuum, if we facilitated the birth of cattle, enabled them to live happy and comfortable lives, and then only slaughtered them for meat with minimum suffering at the latest point in their lives possible, maybe, just maybe, the entire process could be a net positive.
Unfortunately, raising cattle vastly increases the amount of land needed to feed people and comes at the expense of both more efficient methods to feed people and at the expense of wild habitats. In fact, 75% to 80% of farmland is dedicated to animals we butcher and the crops we raise to feed them.
I'm generally pretty sympathetic to analogies between humans and animals, contra those who claim that caring about any aspect of animal welfare is anthropomorphism. But it seems very unlikely to me that a sentient animal's survival instinct is analogous to a sapient animal's expressed desire to continue living in any real sense.
The suffering is the entire problem.
Hard to prove, but I've lived and worked with various species of animals my entire life, and my intuition differs from yours.
Very hard to prove either way. But since we already have to jump through a byzantine arrangement of hoops just to prove that the deprivation account applies to homo sapiens, it seems that much less likely to apply to animals.
Agree with the reasoning both emotionally and rationally, but it reminds me of the Ziz business.
EDIT: For context, I'm a vegan because of how bad farming conditions are.