Humans have been exterminating each other since before agriculture, and hunted a lot of megafauna to extinction before agriculture too. Technology made us more efficient at these things for sure, but even with colonialism and the world wars and factory farming, human-caused suffering is still a tiny blip compared to the history of biological evolution. Annie Dillard mentions horrifying parasitism in insects which has been happening under every leaf for millions of years, for example.
That said, I agree that technological progress should lead toward solving suffering. If it leads to filling more planets with the same kind of biological life as today, with the same ever-present suffering, then I’d rather not have it. In the utopia drafts that I write from time to time (but don’t post anywhere), most animal life has been replaced and even plants have been re-engineered not to smother each other.
You’re also right that this kind of good outcome seems very hard to achieve. It needs not just coordination, but global coordination. Otherwise countries that race ahead in technology will win out and keep remaking the world in their selfish image, with factory farming 2.0 and all that.
Animals can receive moral consideration from moral agents (that is, entities endowed with advanced cognitive capacities) but I fail to see the relevance of including, in moral deliberation, the harm that animals inflict upon other animals.
In my view, the morality of a moral agent’s actions should be assessed on its own terms. We are not engaged in a moral struggle with ichneumons.
I fail to see the relevance of including, in moral deliberation, the harm that animals inflict upon other animals
It’s wrong to make dogs fight ⇒ it’s right to stop someone else from making dogs fight ⇒ it’s right to spend some resources stopping Nature from making dogs fight. Or at least, I don’t see where this logic fails.
Ok, but 1) I won’t say that Nature or the dogs do something moral or immoral. The moral agent that takes a decision to act or not does something moral or immoral.
And 2) the moral agent’s action is moral or immoral regardless of the fact that dogs and wolves have been fighting in nature for millions of years. That fact is neither a mitigating nor an aggravating circumstance for the moral agent. It is neutral, the agent bears no responsibility for the state of nature.
Good post, and a good discussion to have.
Humans have been exterminating each other since before agriculture, and hunted a lot of megafauna to extinction before agriculture too. Technology made us more efficient at these things for sure, but even with colonialism and the world wars and factory farming, human-caused suffering is still a tiny blip compared to the history of biological evolution. Annie Dillard mentions horrifying parasitism in insects which has been happening under every leaf for millions of years, for example.
That said, I agree that technological progress should lead toward solving suffering. If it leads to filling more planets with the same kind of biological life as today, with the same ever-present suffering, then I’d rather not have it. In the utopia drafts that I write from time to time (but don’t post anywhere), most animal life has been replaced and even plants have been re-engineered not to smother each other.
You’re also right that this kind of good outcome seems very hard to achieve. It needs not just coordination, but global coordination. Otherwise countries that race ahead in technology will win out and keep remaking the world in their selfish image, with factory farming 2.0 and all that.
Animals can receive moral consideration from moral agents (that is, entities endowed with advanced cognitive capacities) but I fail to see the relevance of including, in moral deliberation, the harm that animals inflict upon other animals.
In my view, the morality of a moral agent’s actions should be assessed on its own terms. We are not engaged in a moral struggle with ichneumons.
It’s wrong to make dogs fight ⇒ it’s right to stop someone else from making dogs fight ⇒ it’s right to spend some resources stopping Nature from making dogs fight. Or at least, I don’t see where this logic fails.
Ok, but 1) I won’t say that Nature or the dogs do something moral or immoral. The moral agent that takes a decision to act or not does something moral or immoral.
And 2) the moral agent’s action is moral or immoral regardless of the fact that dogs and wolves have been fighting in nature for millions of years. That fact is neither a mitigating nor an aggravating circumstance for the moral agent. It is neutral, the agent bears no responsibility for the state of nature.
Ah I see, I misunderstood your point. You’re right.