Nature will undoubtedly provide a grisly and cruel death. Animals don’t have a concept of “long, well-lived life full of meaning.” They do have a direct experience of “having food and shelter and being generally free of pain is enjoyable.”
It doesn’t matter if it’s in their prime (before they decline and life becomes difficult) or of it’s after their prime - except that if you wait too long, life starts to suck pretty bad.
If you want to end predation, you’ll have an eternal task on your hands.
That is not a chain of reasoning, would you mind trying again. Step by step please.
edit: most charitable read (they blocked me?)
The most charitable read I can see is
1 - everyone dies
2 - I assume without evidence that death is generally unpleasant and painful
3 - I assume without evidence animals don’t have complex internal worlds and desires for things like freedom or long life
4 - I assume the lives animals lead in farms is good
5 - I am a naive utiliarian and see no issues with mere addition/the repugnant conclusion
6 - a quick death does not count negatively in a utiliarian sensw
C - therefore we should breed as many animals as we can, kill them whenever convenient as long as they are not old, and this makes the world better.
I do not see how 1 through 3 connect to 4 through 6. And 4 through 6 is just the repugnant conclusion.
It was three distinct points. But it wouldn’t matter if I did reason it out for you - your stance is emotive, and you won’t agree with me unless that viewpoint underlying your stance changes, and it won’t change due to someone reasoning it out for you.
The slow grind of time, and the steady erosion by nature may cause you to change, though. Fortunately, whether it does or not, it’s basically irrelevant to me whether or not you believe or act as I do.
Edit, in response to your edit:
You sure do assume a lot about me. But, so it goes. Again - I’m not really concerned with whether you think like I do or not. You can even hate me if you like. I don’t expect you to come to my viewpoint by anything I say. My viewpoint is different than yours, and that suits me fine. Such is diversity.
1 - everyone dies
2 - I assume without evidence that death is generally unpleasant and painful
3 - I assume without evidence animals don’t have complex internal worlds and desires for things like freedom or long life
4 - I assume the lives animals lead in farms is good
5 - I am a naive utiliarian and see no issues with mere addition/the repugnant conclusion
6 - a quick death does not count negatively in a utiliarian sensw
C - therefore we should breed as many animals as we can, kill them whenever convenient as long as they are not old, and this makes the world better.
I do not see how 1 through 3 connect to 4 through 6. And 4 through 6 is just the repugnant conclusion.
I’m not sure how you get “Breeding people to kill them in their prime and eat their bodies” from “death is inevitable”.
Could you step through your chain of reasoning please?
Nature will undoubtedly provide a grisly and cruel death. Animals don’t have a concept of “long, well-lived life full of meaning.” They do have a direct experience of “having food and shelter and being generally free of pain is enjoyable.”
It doesn’t matter if it’s in their prime (before they decline and life becomes difficult) or of it’s after their prime - except that if you wait too long, life starts to suck pretty bad.
If you want to end predation, you’ll have an eternal task on your hands.
That is not a chain of reasoning, would you mind trying again. Step by step please.
edit: most charitable read (they blocked me?)
The most charitable read I can see is
1 - everyone dies 2 - I assume without evidence that death is generally unpleasant and painful 3 - I assume without evidence animals don’t have complex internal worlds and desires for things like freedom or long life 4 - I assume the lives animals lead in farms is good 5 - I am a naive utiliarian and see no issues with mere addition/the repugnant conclusion 6 - a quick death does not count negatively in a utiliarian sensw C - therefore we should breed as many animals as we can, kill them whenever convenient as long as they are not old, and this makes the world better.
I do not see how 1 through 3 connect to 4 through 6. And 4 through 6 is just the repugnant conclusion.
It was three distinct points. But it wouldn’t matter if I did reason it out for you - your stance is emotive, and you won’t agree with me unless that viewpoint underlying your stance changes, and it won’t change due to someone reasoning it out for you.
The slow grind of time, and the steady erosion by nature may cause you to change, though. Fortunately, whether it does or not, it’s basically irrelevant to me whether or not you believe or act as I do.
Edit, in response to your edit:
You sure do assume a lot about me. But, so it goes. Again - I’m not really concerned with whether you think like I do or not. You can even hate me if you like. I don’t expect you to come to my viewpoint by anything I say. My viewpoint is different than yours, and that suits me fine. Such is diversity.
The most charitable read I can see is
1 - everyone dies 2 - I assume without evidence that death is generally unpleasant and painful 3 - I assume without evidence animals don’t have complex internal worlds and desires for things like freedom or long life 4 - I assume the lives animals lead in farms is good 5 - I am a naive utiliarian and see no issues with mere addition/the repugnant conclusion 6 - a quick death does not count negatively in a utiliarian sensw C - therefore we should breed as many animals as we can, kill them whenever convenient as long as they are not old, and this makes the world better.
I do not see how 1 through 3 connect to 4 through 6. And 4 through 6 is just the repugnant conclusion.