Becoming a vegetarian does absolutely nothing for already-born individual animals. All the impact is solely through potentially reducing future demand.
prevents the existence of individual beings that live short and miserable lives with slaughter at the end.
Well, this is a longstanding philosophical question with a lot of debate about it. Effectively it’s a question about the value of not-existence.
Off the top of my head let me point out some outstanding issues here.
First, apply this to humans. Take a fetus with a genetic condition which guarantees that the child, if born, will live a short and miserable life. But he’ll live, for some time. Does that justify an abortion?
Second, what’s your criteria for “short and miserable”? For certain points of view the lives of most humans here on Earth are “short and miserable”.
Third, if you think that some kind of life is worse than non-existing, then the implication is that the creature leading such a life will suicide as soon as he/she/it is able to. That’s a pretty high bar for “worse than non-existing”.
Right, I meant individual (potential) animals existing in the future.
I don’t think suicide is a good indicator here because we could imagine an evil scientist designing a mind that will constantly experience the worst feeling ever but that still wants to continue to go on living. Is it wrong to not prevent such a mind from being turned on? I strongly think so. Also note that evolution might function a bit like the evil scientist in the hypothetical, because evolution is all about optimizing gene-copying success and not about the well-being of individuals.
I think most people would agree that some forms of existence are worse than not being born, especially if they imagine the torture as vividly as they can. (I think someone linked to footage from factory farms somewhere in this comment section.) An interesting question is whether there is a duty to procreate, assuming that beings will live lives that overall go well. I don’t think factory farms qualify for that, even if we set the bar pretty low, but if they did, the evaluation would come down to population ethics, where things get messy because it has been proved formally that no possible solution fulfills some seemingly very conservative adequacy conditions.
I think most people would agree that some forms of existence are worse than not being born
They are not likely to agree on which ones, though.
This also brings to mind an image of a very well-meaning fellow sneaking into kitchens of slave compounds (in ancient Greece, or XVIII-century US, or elsewhere—take your pick) and adding to the food a drug which makes everyone who consumes it permanently sterile.
if they imagine the torture as vividly as they can
They are not likely to agree on which ones, though.
And from this you conclude … ?
This also brings to mind an image of a very well-meaning fellow sneaking into kitchens of slave compounds (in ancient Greece, or XVIII-century US, or elsewhere—take your pick) and adding to the food a drug which makes everyone who consumes it permanently sterile.
To be clear, you would condemn this, would you?
if they imagine the torture as vividly as they can
:-)
Not as bad as they can imagine; the correct level of torture, but imagined as vividly as possible.
Becoming a vegetarian does absolutely nothing for already-born individual animals. All the impact is solely through potentially reducing future demand.
Well, this is a longstanding philosophical question with a lot of debate about it. Effectively it’s a question about the value of not-existence.
Off the top of my head let me point out some outstanding issues here.
First, apply this to humans. Take a fetus with a genetic condition which guarantees that the child, if born, will live a short and miserable life. But he’ll live, for some time. Does that justify an abortion?
Second, what’s your criteria for “short and miserable”? For certain points of view the lives of most humans here on Earth are “short and miserable”.
Third, if you think that some kind of life is worse than non-existing, then the implication is that the creature leading such a life will suicide as soon as he/she/it is able to. That’s a pretty high bar for “worse than non-existing”.
Right, I meant individual (potential) animals existing in the future.
I don’t think suicide is a good indicator here because we could imagine an evil scientist designing a mind that will constantly experience the worst feeling ever but that still wants to continue to go on living. Is it wrong to not prevent such a mind from being turned on? I strongly think so. Also note that evolution might function a bit like the evil scientist in the hypothetical, because evolution is all about optimizing gene-copying success and not about the well-being of individuals.
I think most people would agree that some forms of existence are worse than not being born, especially if they imagine the torture as vividly as they can. (I think someone linked to footage from factory farms somewhere in this comment section.) An interesting question is whether there is a duty to procreate, assuming that beings will live lives that overall go well. I don’t think factory farms qualify for that, even if we set the bar pretty low, but if they did, the evaluation would come down to population ethics, where things get messy because it has been proved formally that no possible solution fulfills some seemingly very conservative adequacy conditions.
They are not likely to agree on which ones, though.
This also brings to mind an image of a very well-meaning fellow sneaking into kitchens of slave compounds (in ancient Greece, or XVIII-century US, or elsewhere—take your pick) and adding to the food a drug which makes everyone who consumes it permanently sterile.
:-)
And from this you conclude … ?
To be clear, you would condemn this, would you?
Not as bad as they can imagine; the correct level of torture, but imagined as vividly as possible.