• intensely_human
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    What if it requires 1/1000th the number of animals … but each one suffers a hundred times more?

    Would it be worth it?

      • intensely_human
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        If you don’t have a way of quantifying suffering, perhaps all utilitarian calculus is bunk?

        • 0xD@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Unfortunately, I don’t really understand your response.

          You talked about one hundred times the suffering. What does that mean? To me, the way animals are held in mass production is completely unethical and there is no way to make it worse… So how do you make the animals suffer even more?

    • nickiwest@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      From a utilitarian perspective, you’re still reducing overall suffering by an order of magnitude, so your scenario is still a greater good.

      • intensely_human
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Hence the word “if” here. A hypothetical scenario.