Increasing overall wellbeing

[danst0]

Hi,

I am a vegan. So I am arguing with myself here. The following thought experiment came to my mind:
Imagine you could raise a cow as happy as a cow gets. Lets give it 2-3 years. Then slaughter with prior sedation.
Assumption: Despite being slaughtered sum of wellbeing (maybe joy minus pain) is still positive.

Is it now good that the cow has lived or is it not?

Of course killing the cow in the end is wrong, because we do not need the meat and can easily live without it. However, if there was nobody to eat the cow, the cow would not have been born and raised at all, and it could not have lived the live it had.

This is bugging me since a few days and I hope you have a good solution

Daniel

[brimstoneSalad]

Welcome Daniel, you may find this thread interesting, as it's addressing the same kind of question:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=2583

In short, classical utilitarianism which only cares about experienced pain and pleasure is wrong; it is the interests of a sentient being we should be concerned with.
Consider the golden rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Would you have, or allow that, others kill you painlessly without you knowing it's coming some time today in the prime of your natural life?
Most people don't agree that it's OK for others to violate their interests like that (people who do are probably depressed and don't think much of life).

Life can be a good thing, but causing death is not without moral cost; All other things being equal it's better to have one longer good life instead of many short ones that add up to the same number of years, since the combination of many shorter lives involves more deaths. A birth is instrumentally good when it creates a new good life that wouldn't or couldn't have been there, but it doesn't mean much when you kill one to make room for another.

Also, given that we have finite resources and cows are innately inefficient, we're kind of sacrificing the potential space for good human lives to make room for all of these cows.

[danst0]

I was pondering on what you said, however it does not add up for me.
Your ethical framework (golden rule and the interest of a sentient being) is an inadequate decision support. Two examples:
* Even vegan food production cost some animal lifes (definitely less than raising animals for food first). So by how much should we shrink human population to adequately consider the life we destroy with our wheat and corn fields?
* For some human progress animal tests have been indispensable (e.g. First dog in space, drug tests). So even though there might be ways to reduce animal testing, how many humans have to die from (e.g.) the flu to justify one animal sacrifice?

So in other words, you have to weigh lifes to enable consistent decision making. While refuting utilitarianism you argued with the moral cost. And evaluation of one longer vs. many shorter lifes. But where is the difference in your implicit calculation vs. plain old utilitarianism taking these factors into account?

Daniel

[brimstoneSalad]

* Even vegan food production cost some animal lifes (definitely less than raising animals for food first).

Nobody is denying this. That it harms less is all that matters.

So by how much should we shrink human population to adequately consider the life we destroy with our wheat and corn fields?

I think you misunderstood the thread, nobody is talking about reducing the human population.

* For some human progress animal tests have been indispensable (e.g. First dog in space, drug tests). So even though there might be ways to reduce animal testing, how many humans have to die from (e.g.) the flu to justify one animal sacrifice?

I'm not against necessary animal testing for medical purposes. I don't know where you got that.

So in other words, you have to weigh lifes to enable consistent decision making.

Of course.
I don't see the problem here.

While refuting utilitarianism you argued with the moral cost. And evaluation of one longer vs. many shorter lifes. But where is the difference in your implicit calculation vs. plain old utilitarianism taking these factors into account?

Classical utilitarianism is based only on experience. We should value interests or preference.

Look into preference utilitarianism, that may help clarify the difference.

[Silver]

Of course killing the cow in the end is wrong, because we do not need the meat and can easily live without it. However, if there was nobody to eat the cow, the cow would not have been born and raised at all, and it could not have lived the live it had.

I think it's still unethical to have raised the cow with the purpose of killing it after 2 or 3 years. If its only purpose to be harvested, then it would be better for it not to have been bred in the first place.
Hypothetical animals that haven't been born can't suffer or be exploited. I think its wrong to breed an animal just to exploit it later.

[danst0]

@brimstoneSalad I see your point. Thank you! I think I have to improve my philosophy terminology...

I tried to see it the other way around in the following thought experiment: If I would live in a world where somehow superior beings would harvest mankind at the age of (e.g) 30. Would I still be able to see my life lived until then as a valuable experience and worth living?
In most scenarios, where mankind is not mistreated too much and death is quick, I would still come to a positive conclusion...

So suppose these superior beings had the alternative to use earth to grow plants, which they maybe liked less than humans, then I would be in the dilemma to argue _for_ keeping mankind as livestock?

Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing for killing animals for food, I am just still pondering on a rationale for how many non-human animals should still be on earth if all mankind switched to a plant-based diet.

[RLRobbins]

I tried to see it the other way around in the following thought experiment: If I would live in a world where somehow superior beings would harvest mankind at the age of (e.g) 30. Would I still be able to see my life lived until then as a valuable experience and worth living?
In most scenarios, where mankind is not mistreated too much and death is quick, I would still come to a positive conclusion...

I strongly doubt whether you'd come to a positive conclusion. Being born knowing that your only purpose is to be harvested at the age of 30 - which is not even half of most people's natural lives - would most likely put you in a state of deep depression.

So suppose these superior beings had the alternative to use earth to grow plants, which they maybe liked less than humans, then I would be in the dilemma to argue _for_ keeping mankind as livestock?

Not sure I follow you? Do you mean that, if these "superior" beings liked plants less than humans, but had the option to grow plants to consume in place of humans, that you would argue for them keeping humans as livestock? In this scenario, can the "superior" beings survive and thrive without human flesh? Does consuming human flesh lead to eventual disease and a lower quality of life in the later stages of these beings' lives (as it does in the case of humans eating animals)?
Also, keep in mind that, even if the humans where to somehow all be fine with this arrangement (I assure you, most of us would not), the "superior" beings would still be robbing humans of the majority of their lifespans.
The reason I put the word superior in quotes was because I'd also like to know in what way these being are superior to us? Is it equivalent to the differences between humans and other mammals? Because the only real difference between us and other mammals is that we have higher IQs and, as far as we can tell, are more creative than them. Those differences, in my opinion, are certainly not enough to convince me that we are "superior". We can do more, but being more capable does not necessarily equate to superiority.

Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing for killing animals for food, I am just still pondering on a rationale for how many non-human animals should still be on earth if all mankind switched to a plant-based diet.

What do you mean? All the animals that are on the earth, should be on the earth (even though I can't stand things like mosquitoes and spiders). Why would that change if everybody stopped eating dead flesh? Are you suggesting that cows, chickens, and pigs exist purely to be farmed and slaughtered? Am I just misunderstanding? Or maybe you made a spelling error? Do you mean "how many non-human animals WOULD still be on earth if all mankind switched to a plant-based diet"? Well, if that was your question, the answer depends on how the farms that currently keep these animals would go about ending their trade. If they change for moral reasons, then they would either keep the animals in better living conditions, or try to assimilate them back into the wild. As for those farmers who believe the global change is for health reasons, the answer to the question "how many animals would there be" is probably: a lot less. But at least the animals would have a fair chance, and freedom. Any outcome is better than the current animals industry which, as I'm sure you know, consists of the cruellest practises imaginable.

[brimstoneSalad]

So suppose these superior beings had the alternative to use earth to grow plants, which they maybe liked less than humans, then I would be in the dilemma to argue _for_ keeping mankind as livestock?

Did you read my posts on this?
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=2583

We're in a situation where more cows = fewer humans. Raising animals is inefficient. There is more opportunity cost to it than just being there or not.

If you had the choice to be human living 30 years, or one of these alien beings, which would you choose?
If you had the choice to be a cow living a couple years, or a human, which would you choose?

If you'd rather be a human than a cow, or one of these aliens than a human, that should answer the question.
The Earth should support the beings with the more meaningful and fulfilling lives that you'd rather live than the other.

Don't get me wrong, I am not arguing for killing animals for food, I am just still pondering on a rationale for how many non-human animals should still be on earth if all mankind switched to a plant-based diet.

Unless you'd rather live a non-human life, then probably none. We should have more humans instead.

Imagine you were to be born randomly as some species on Earth; wouldn't you rather your odds of being born human rather than a cow as high as possible?

[danst0]

If you'd rather be a human than a cow, or one of these aliens than a human, that should answer the question.
The Earth should support the beings with the more meaningful and fulfilling lives that you'd rather live than the other.
[...]
Imagine you were to be born randomly as some species on Earth; wouldn't you rather your odds of being born human rather than a cow as high as possible?

This is exactly the question I had.
Did I understand your point correctly?
In an optimal future there would be not a single, non-essential non-human left on earth since human conscience is superior to the one of animals. All resources would be used by humans.

What would be essential animals in this context?

• Wildlife like bees (until we can fertilize our plants ourselves)?
• Pets either being used as educational tool for children (taking responsibility) or as a companion for comfort?

It still sounds wrong to me. Of course I would like to continue living my life even if there was a superior alien. Isn't there some additional value in the persistence of mankind overall and on the individual continuance of life from parent to child?

[vegan81vzla]

We need to make it clear that raising, animals is unethical because we focus our efforts to feed those animals and waste resources instead of focusing them on humans. Beyond that, we force other humans to defend those animals and their needs, inspite of other humans, and even on our overall well-being. Those are the unehical aspects of a carnist society. Other than that, animal welfarism is irrelevant to veganism. Raising animals no matter what is unehical.