I’m currently unsure because I don’t understand accurately the nature of wireheading. But if one could hypothetically remove all suffering from the factory farming process, I would then morally permit eating meat.
All suffering? Even, say, the chance of the farmer getting a torn nail? Why such high standards in this case?
The more suffering that could be removed, the better, but eventually you’ll hit a point where removing more suffering is no longer feasible or worth focusing on, because there will be suffering easier to remove elsewhere.
Really, what I’m looking for, is the point where the net suffering to produce the food is equal to or less than the net benefit the production of the food provides.
All suffering? Even, say, the chance of the farmer getting a torn nail? Why such high standards in this case?
The more suffering that could be removed, the better, but eventually you’ll hit a point where removing more suffering is no longer feasible or worth focusing on, because there will be suffering easier to remove elsewhere.
Really, what I’m looking for, is the point where the net suffering to produce the food is equal to or less than the net benefit the production of the food provides.