Do you see a difference between factory farming and other farming?
Sort of. Different farms treat animals differently, and there are certainly some farms that treat animals well. But they’re all small, local farms and not a source of the majority of the meat.
Perhaps you’re suggesting that instead of pro-vegetarianism advocacy, we do pro-”farms that treat animals well” advocacy. The problem is, I suspect, it would take an awful, awful lot of money to first scale a farm large enough to get meat to everyone while still treating all the animals well.
If you are a consequentialist, not a deontologist and if non-factory animals suffer less than factory animals, you should take that into account, even if you believe that their lives are net negatives.
Can you explain how it’s not currently being taken into account and what effect you think it would have on the calculation? And why it might indicate some sort of hidden deontology on my part?
You seem driven by thresholds, like a good life and especially a good death and you do not seem interested in replacing a life of high suffering with a life of low suffering, just because the life of low suffering is a net negative. Such thresholds tend to be characteristic of deontologists.
In particular, I observed this on the thread about fish. Here I asked you about replacing worse farms with better but still bad farms and your response was that truly good farms are too expensive, ignoring the possibility of farms that are full of suffering, just lower levels of suffering.
Maybe it is implausible to change how farming is done (though I think you are mistaken about the diversity of practices), but getting people to switch from pork to beef or from chicken to fish seems quite plausible to me.
You seem driven by thresholds, like a good life and especially a good death and you do not seem interested in replacing a life of high suffering with a life of low suffering, just because the life of low suffering is a net negative.
What makes me look like I’m interested in thresholds? Replacing a life of high suffering with a life of low suffering is good. Replacing that same life of high suffering with a life of no suffering is even better.
~
Here I asked you about replacing worse farms with better but still bad farms and your response was that truly good farms are too expensive, ignoring the possibility of farms that are full of suffering, just lower levels of suffering.
I don’t understand how I ignored your point. Could you re-explain?
~
Maybe it is implausible to change how farming is done (though I think you are mistaken about the diversity of practices), but getting people to switch from pork to beef or from chicken to fish seems quite plausible to me.
I’ve strongly considered convincing people to shift away from chicken, eggs, and fish to other forms of meat, given arguments around suffering per kg of meat demanded. This is also why I’m personally a vegetarian and not a vegan.
Sort of. Different farms treat animals differently, and there are certainly some farms that treat animals well. But they’re all small, local farms and not a source of the majority of the meat.
Perhaps you’re suggesting that instead of pro-vegetarianism advocacy, we do pro-”farms that treat animals well” advocacy. The problem is, I suspect, it would take an awful, awful lot of money to first scale a farm large enough to get meat to everyone while still treating all the animals well.
Can you explain how it’s not currently being taken into account and what effect you think it would have on the calculation? And why it might indicate some sort of hidden deontology on my part?
You seem driven by thresholds, like a good life and especially a good death and you do not seem interested in replacing a life of high suffering with a life of low suffering, just because the life of low suffering is a net negative. Such thresholds tend to be characteristic of deontologists.
In particular, I observed this on the thread about fish. Here I asked you about replacing worse farms with better but still bad farms and your response was that truly good farms are too expensive, ignoring the possibility of farms that are full of suffering, just lower levels of suffering.
Maybe it is implausible to change how farming is done (though I think you are mistaken about the diversity of practices), but getting people to switch from pork to beef or from chicken to fish seems quite plausible to me.
What makes me look like I’m interested in thresholds? Replacing a life of high suffering with a life of low suffering is good. Replacing that same life of high suffering with a life of no suffering is even better.
~
I don’t understand how I ignored your point. Could you re-explain?
~
I’ve strongly considered convincing people to shift away from chicken, eggs, and fish to other forms of meat, given arguments around suffering per kg of meat demanded. This is also why I’m personally a vegetarian and not a vegan.