Jump to content


Photo

the ethics of factory farming and foie gras


  • Please log in to reply
370 replies to this topic

#361 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 86,849 posts

Posted 11 January 2016 - 06:58 PM

One of the countless problems with the utility approach is that if many people thoroughly enjoyed torturing and killing a few animals occasionally, the calculus would pronounce that a good.

I honestly think utilitarianism is totally debunked (even though it does seem to be fashionable in some quarters currently).

#362 taion

taion

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,696 posts

Posted 11 January 2016 - 07:03 PM

If I remember correctly, Singer believes that preventing predation would not reduce suffering, but would probably increase it through species growth.

I'm still not clear why the obligation described for act utilitarians wouldn't create a rule, since it's described in general terms. But fortunately utilitarianism isn't the only form of consequentialism.

 

I linked to his full response to the question of natural animal suffering. He gives a precautionary cop-out out of fear of destabilizing the ecosystem, but he fully admits that if there were a way to just reduce suffering (consider some hypothetical technology that painlessly euthanizes any prey animal about to be killed by a predator), that it would be morally obligatory under his ethics to do such a thing.


I didn't tip at Per Se either.

#363 taion

taion

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,696 posts

Posted 11 January 2016 - 07:06 PM

Yes, obviously Peter Singer is an idiot who follows a completely debunked and discredited system of ethics.

 

Seriously?


I didn't tip at Per Se either.

#364 Orik

Orik

    Advanced Member

  • Technocrat
  • PipPipPip
  • 22,205 posts

Posted 11 January 2016 - 11:18 PM

I should have mentioned masturbation as well as procreation.

 

Intellectually masturbatory activity is absolutely encouraged by both orthodox judaism and catholicism.

 

 

https://www.washingt...rt-street-cats/


sandwiches that are large and filling and do not contain tuna or prawns

#365 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 86,849 posts

Posted 12 January 2016 - 02:11 AM

Yes, obviously Peter Singer is an idiot who follows a completely debunked and discredited system of ethics.
 
Seriously?

You seem to be very angry about something. I don't know why. The problems with utilitarianism are very well known. I don't think Singer is a very good philosopher. I'm not alone.

You might as well say Bernard Williams is an "idiot" because he (very convincingly) rejects utilitarianism. Better to make up your own mind than relying on the idea that this guy is an "idiot" and this other guy isn't.

Plato is wrong about all kinds of stuff. It hardly makes him an "idiot." Philosophy doesn't work like that (nor does science).

#366 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 86,849 posts

Posted 12 January 2016 - 02:31 AM


If I remember correctly, Singer believes that preventing predation would not reduce suffering, but would probably increase it through species growth.

I'm still not clear why the obligation described for act utilitarians wouldn't create a rule, since it's described in general terms. But fortunately utilitarianism isn't the only form of consequentialism.

... if there were a way to just reduce suffering (consider some hypothetical technology that painlessly euthanizes any prey animal about to be killed by a predator), that it would be morally obligatory under his ethics to do such a thing.
If you look back you'll see neither Adrian nor I denied this. The proffer was simply that preventing predation as such wouldn't have that outcome; as I think Singer agrees.

Of course Singer thinks you "ought to" reduce any and all suffering.

#367 taion

taion

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 7,696 posts

Posted 12 January 2016 - 02:49 AM

Take a look at the PhilPapers survey: http://philpapers.or...veys/results.pl

 

Natural animal suffering is not a purely hypothetical position – for example, it bears on whether you should have opposed reintroducing wolves to Yellowstone or golden eagles to Ireland.

 

It's more like this is a difficult problem where there does not exist a generally accepted answer – but some are easier to talk and reason about than others.


I didn't tip at Per Se either.

#368 Wilfrid

Wilfrid

    Advanced Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPip
  • 86,849 posts

Posted 12 January 2016 - 03:06 AM

Right. I'm not sure where you perceive a disagreement there.

#369 LiquidNY

LiquidNY

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,153 posts

Posted 18 January 2016 - 09:38 PM

Chickens weren't always just for dinner.

Man about town.


#370 Lex

Lex

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 23,868 posts

Posted 18 January 2016 - 09:54 PM

Chickens weren't always just for dinner.

 

Steve R. is vindicated!


"I don't understand what's wrong with thinking of correlation as a pricing convention the way one thinks of Black-Scholes vol. I mean, vol curves aren't "real" anyway, but nobody uses local vol models to price vanilla options." - Taion
 
"But this is blatant ultracrepidarianism on my part." - Taion

I have a dream of a multiplicity of pastramis.

"once the penis came out, there was discussions as to why we didn't order the testicles" - Daniel describing a meal in China

#371 Sneakeater

Sneakeater

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 64,842 posts

Posted 18 January 2016 - 10:32 PM

Steve will be buried with his chicken.


Bar Loser

MF Old