“It’s Better To Save Infinite Shrimp From Torture Than To Save One Person”
Infinite is doing a lot of heavy lifting in this argument, I feel. You conclude your argument with
”I don’t know exactly how many shrimp being tortured is as bad as one human dying, but it’s probably less than 75 million!” I believe this is the key point around this charity, about which people argue. What is the shrimp-to-human ratio that they are willing to trade off? This is only compounded by our inability to properly conceptualize the difference in magnitude between large numbers, making this an extremely challenging way to convince others of your position.
Personally I find the arguments using finite numbers more convincing. i.e. number of shrimp killed * probability of shrimp feeling pain > 1 human suffering. As well as arguments arguing that shrimp welfare is more effective and neglected than animal welfare.
Cytokine
Karma: 19
“From my perspective, the victory condition was that the kid can tread water, jump in, and climb out.”
I would consider adding an additional condition of being able to swim 30-50 meters without aids. It addresses the potential risk of falling into the water in a location where it’s challenging to get out.
Is there some greater context to this question? how often does someone promise to extend the life of someone else outside of familial relationships?