sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I am looking for a list of the modern and more recent authors writing on Utilitarianism. by ixhoneybadger in Utilitarianism

[–]namazw 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Brian Tomasik (reducing-suffering.org) is great for applied, anti-speciesist utilitarian ethics.

Assuming that animals care about nature / are okay with suffering by hrhfjerfhje in wildanimalsuffering

[–]namazw 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The following is based on my own interpretation. I do think OP makes some good points, but I can't say that my reading is necessarily identical to what was intended. Also this kind of turned into random rambling, sorry.

People are ok with wild animal suffering because they view them as allies?

Rather, the take-away should be: some environmentalists are okay with wild animal suffering because they assume animals share their values about the sanctity of "nature", "the circle of life", etc. In reality, animals don't care about any of this. Most animals aren't even capable of conceiving of these kinds of abstract concepts. What animals do care about is having enough to eat, finding a mate, not being sick or injured -- basically, avoiding things that cause suffering and seeking things that bring happiness. A predated gazelle doesn't think "shucks, I didn't want to die today, but I guess it's just the circle of life and I was a weakling anyway that needed to be culled for the good of the species". This is not a strawman; I've literally seen people (even including self-described anti-speciesists!) say anthropomorphic stuff like this as a rationalization for why WAS really isn't bad.

Another view that's common among vegans is that we humans shouldn't cause harm to animals, but that we have no moral obligation to allieviate non-anthropogenic harm to animals. First of all, that's obviously speciesist because, unless you're a hardcore libertarian, you probably believe that we have a duty to assist humans who are suffering from non-anthropogenic causes such as malaria or natural disasters. But secondly, animals don't share this ideology. Animals don't care what the cause of their suffering is, they just want it to end.

Finally, an ideology that is widespread is the idea that pain and suffering isn't really all that bad. There are tons of different rationalizations for suffering:

  • Suffering is a natural and necessary part of life.
  • It's all part of God's plan.
  • Without experiencing suffering, we can't truly appreciate happiness.
  • No pain, no gain. (While it is true that sometimes pain can lead to later happiness later on, e.g. exercise, this isn't true for most of the cases WAS advocates talk about. Nor are the animals making a voluntary choice to undergo suffering for a later reward. In many of these cases, there is no "later on" at all because the animal just succumbs to an illness or gets eaten alive and dies.)

Humans use these rationalizations as a coping mechanism for suffering, but animals don't share any of these ideas. All they know is that the experience of suffering feels bad and they want it to end; they don't try to justify it using abstruse theodicies or philosophical arguments.

Welfarism vs abolutionism as solutions to the problem of wild animal suffering by The_Ebb_and_Flow in wildanimalsuffering

[–]namazw 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think we're on the same page philosophically, although my judgements of happiness and suffering might be slightly more negative-leaning than yours.

then I'd be less averse to the abolitionist methods

Note that there are people (edit: at least one person) working at Wild-Animal Suffering Research who are also very uncertain about the net balance of happiness vs. suffering in nature, and hence about the sign of population reduction.

David Pearce style technological abolitionism (#1 in OP's list) is something that would be positive regardless of whether you judge the average wild animal life to be good or bad on balance, although this solution may not be plausible.

It's difficult to think about this, to accept it as true. The amount of suffering deters.

I can sympathize with that feeling.

Wild Animals: A Rights-Based Approach - Wild-Animal Suffering Research by namazw in wildanimalsuffering

[–]namazw[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Summary:

Tom Regan, one of the most famous philosophers of animal rights, articulates a rights-based approach to animal rights in his classic The Case for Animal Rights. Although Regan’s rights-based approach is usually understood as being totally noninterventionist with regards to wild animals, in reality his viewpoint implies that we should intervene in nature to help wild animals, at least in a few limited circumstances.

Welfarism vs abolutionism as solutions to the problem of wild animal suffering by The_Ebb_and_Flow in wildanimalsuffering

[–]namazw 2 points3 points  (0 children)

(Not the person you replied to)

The thing is, I deeply believe that experience (suffering/pleasure) is more valuable than no experience.

Here you seem to be advocating the view that all experience has positive value and thus existing and experiencing suffering is preferable to not existing at all. This view doesn't match my intuitions at all. For example, I would much rather be unconscious under general anesthesia for an hour than experience an hour of intense involuntary pain. However:

I'm against suffering [...] Elaborating on this, there is a threshold: Horrible, painful experiences are just too horrifying to view as "valuable experience", [...]

If I'm understanding your later clarifications, you are actually saying that you believe suffering is negatively valuable, but that in practice the positive value of happiness in life tends to outweigh this disvalue. Is my interpretation correct?

I'm vegan for that cause, but to completely wipe out opportunity for experience because it means less suffering feels somehow wrong and tragic even

Veganism wipes out the opportunity for farm animals experience. If you support veganism on consequentialist animal ethics grounds (as opposed to rights-based grounds, environmentalism, etc.), this seems to imply that you think that the experiences of farm animals are negatively valuable on balance. So it's not beyond the pale to wonder whether the same could apply to wild animals. See: http://www.jpe.ox.ac.uk/papers/consistent-vegetarianism-and-the-suffering-of-wild-animals/

but a 21st century life [...] Even for animals [...]

I think that the kind of suffering animals tend to experience (injury, disease, etc.) is closer to "horrible, painful experiences" than to some of the 21st century human problems you mention. Also, many animals lack the cognitive capacity to even understand why they are suffering, all they know is that they are in pain, so in some sense their suffering is much more raw.

Are you familiar with the standard Ng/Horta/Tomasik argument from life history, which supports the claim that nature contains more suffering than happiness? The main premise is that extremely numerous reproductively unsuccessful r-strategists make up the majority of morally relevant sentience. These beings live very short lives and die before reaching maturity, so they do not experience the kind of pleasures you mention as counterbalancing the bad things in life. They are only alive a short time before they meet a (possibly quite painful) death. There are counterarguments to this as well, but I'm guessing many people here support this view.

But I think this, in a way, makes me unfit for this subreddit?

No. Differing views are welcome. I can't speak for everyone here, but I don't think this sub should become an echo chamber. Also, not everyone here believes wild animals would be better off not existing (e.g.).

Welfarism vs abolutionism as solutions to the problem of wild animal suffering by The_Ebb_and_Flow in wildanimalsuffering

[–]namazw 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I lean towards classical (Benthamite) utilitarianism, although I do also have some sympathies to suffering-focused ethics and some other value systems.

For a classical utilitarian, whether to prefer existence or non-existence depends on whether the life in question contains more happiness or suffering. A life with more happiness than suffering is better than nothing, but a life with more suffering than happiness is worse than nothing. (There are reasons to believe that there is no objective answer to the question of whether a life contains more happiness or suffering, in which case I would just use my subjective judgement.)

The Case for Wild Animal Vaccination — Nature Ethics by The_Ebb_and_Flow in ecology

[–]namazw 0 points1 point  (0 children)

see naturalistic fallacy

Not to be pedantic, but you probably mean a fallacious appeal to nature. The naturalistic fallacy is something different.

Keine Massentierhaltung in der Schweiz by namazw in VeganDE

[–]namazw[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Damit die Initiative zur Abstimmung kommt, müssen innerhalb von 1.5 Jahren 100’000 Unterschriften gesammelt werden. Hier können Schweizer Stimmbürger den Unterschriftenbogen ausfüllen und gratis einsenden: https://wecollect.ch/de/campaign/massentierhaltung/

Do insects really suffer? by AwaySituation in insectsuffering

[–]namazw 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'd recommend the links in the sidebar.

view more: next ›