Many species of animal mate through a what is essentially rape -- the male chases the female down. I think of this because I just looked out my window at the pond behind my house and saw a group of mallard ducks chasing around a female. Suppose we were able to confirm through neural scans that the female really experiences this the way a human would -- terror, pain, etc. Should we then interfere with the natural process of mating of these animals for the sake of their welfare?

For instance we could begin a program of artificial insemination of female mallard ducks so that they don't have to be raped. — Garth

I would be in favour of interfering with natural to reduce suffering. The scenario you have put has a lot of variables that need to be taken into consideration, as opposed to the obvious horrors of factory farming, which I cannot find justification for.

If, suddenly for whatever reason, more and more people stopped buying factory farmed animals and instead turned to ethically farmed animals, with a rising demand for ethically farmed animals how long do you think those ethical farms would be able to keep up the demand for their product without putting pressure on their ethical practices? That seems to me a very work intensive way to produce the same amount of product the factory farms produced. How would they manage it? — Brett

People pay extra for "ethically farmed animal products" to make up for the additional costs to the industry. However, to be honest, as @Bitter Crank and @TheMadFool have alluded to, "ethically farmed animals" suffer cruelty and abuse too. Veganism is the only way to eliminate suffering.

It sounds to me like you’re really against the idea of killing for food. Which I understand. The only way around that is for us to produce synthetic good or become vegans. Which would mean an end to all leather products, which is possible.

Animals are an easy source of protein for us. It’s responsible for our evolutionary success. But maybe it’s time to end it. It seems to me that farming is just an unthinking continuation of hunting for food. Do we really need that source of protein? Is there really no other way? It all looks a bit savage and primitive to me. — Brett

I remember watching a video by one Dr. Neal Barnard where he says that even if you got your daily calories from broccoli you would get enough protein. When you consider all of the saturated fat and cholesterol that would otherwise be clogging up your arteries, leading to the US' biggest killer - heart disease, veganism looks like a pretty safe bet.

It's surprising how conditioned we become: it didn't even occur to me that consuming animal products might cause suffering, until a few years ago.

thank you — munmin78

The animals can't speak for themselves, so those of us that have come to realise how much they suffer must do it for them.

Pain and suffering are the harbingers of death. Their sole purpose is to warn living things when death is on the horizon. You can't separate the two - death and pain/suffering - in a way that wouldn't raise a few eyebrows here and there. That would be like a gang of thieves deciding to sabotage the the burglar alarm first and then robbing a house, fully convinced that doing the former makes their action legal (read: moral) — TheMadFool

The industry uses the term "humane slaughter" - but as you say, it's rare that death is free of pain/suffering. Maybe in the future science will allow for livestock that cannot suffer (for those that will refuse to eat "unnatural" lab grown meat). Many vegans would still think it wrong to kill them, but I wouldn't.

It's becoming less ethical to do so ... — 180 Proof

You still waiting on your lab grown meat? :wink:

What do you think would happen to those numbers if the prices for essential goods doubled? Do you think they would increase by anything less than double? — Outlander

I think you're getting your economics wrong. When demand falls, so do prices.

Animals probably don’t have the same capacity to suffer as human beings do mainly because they can’t reflect on their suffering and they probably can’t be traumatized by their suffering the way that humans can be. — TheHedoMinimalist

The animals' confusion and panic can't be much better? A human can get mental strength from fighting back or contemplating escape.

This is probably a very complicated topic in itself. And while an interesting and worthwhile one, I'm sure you agree that animals don't need to suffer as much as humans would in their position for their suffering to be wrong.

I think that it is more rational and more good for someone to focus much more on their own hedonic welfare above the hedonic welfare of others all things being equal. — TheHedoMinimalist

As you say "all things being equal". Which is not the case when comparing the animals' suffering (sometimes from beatings and torture) to the taste you get from their products.

Instead of spending extra money on free range meat, it is better to donate the extra money you would have spent to charities that are trying to produce inexpensive ways to make ethical meat. — TheHedoMinimalist

There is no guarantee this pittance would have any impact on innovation, where buying free range would undeniably give the animals a better quality of life. In any event, vegan food is even cheaper, then you would have even more money to donate to the ethical meat charities, and you've caused no cruelty in the process.

Thank you everyone for your comments

It is not ethical for the workers to add more suffering to the animals than necessary. But that should be managed by the business. Incidents of particular employees acting unethically does not paint all people in the organization as wrong or unethical. Typically bringing these things to light puts pressure on business owners to fix their image. — Philosophim

The aforesaid beatings and torture would not happen if people didn't pay for the animals products.

Surely one should stop purchasing it, thus eliminating any suffering that was resulting from you doing so.

Of course not. The workers should be allowed to take out their frustrations on society and their intimate partners. That or just let other places who don't allow such freedoms including personal belongings or electronics to document such events in the first place make all the money that will inevitably be made and perpetuate the abuse. What you don't know can't hurt you, right? What a silly thread. — Outlander

When people are violent to humans they tend to be locked away for it. The cruelty towards animals tends to be because they literally have no voice, and the perpetrator almost always gets away with it.

The beatings and torture footage is from hidden cameras, planted by activists. As @Philosophim says, this footage pressures businesses in a positive direction.

No worse than typing on a computer whose components are made in exploitive third-world factories. You might recall that a while back, Foxconn employees were committing suicide. They solved the problem by installing suicide nets on the roof.

The global supply chain is something you don't want to look too closely at. — fishfry

Reaching for oat-milk rather than cow-milk is hardly inconvenient, and well worth it to prevent the suffering of animals.

We can't be perfect, but we should try our best not to harm others.

Factory farming is not not inherently cruel and abusive; cruelty and abuse could take place just as easily on a little farm as a very big one. Cruelty and abuse occur in human workplaces and shelters, too. — Bitter Crank

None of the cruelty would occur if people were not buying the animal products.

Considering the amount of animal products consumed over one's lifetime, surely it would be better not to do so, and avoid all of the cruelty that comes as a consequence.

I will consume whatever is legal for me to consume without guilt. But I will advocate for changes to the economic system.

We are playing a game with each other. There are clear winners and losers. I won't compromise my position for the sake of ethical abstractions. — Garth

I'm not sure what you mean by compromising your position. Would you not compromise some taste pleasure, to save the animals pain and suffering?

"Ethical" has a ring of authority, moral authority. Whereas that is a myth. Say what you think: animals should not be beaten, and one should not buy products made of tortured animals. Fine, I can support that. — god must be atheist

It was the softest term I could think of.

You indicate that "one should not buy products made of tortured animals". Would you go further and say that one should not buy factory farmed animal products?

No. Still, I do. Guilty. — petrichor

Well, you're the only person to respond in the affirmative. I appreciate your honesty.

Is killing ethical?

Is being part of the constant demand for meat that ultimately involves killing of animals ethical?

Begging the question — TheMadFool

Considering that the animals only exist because of the demand, I don't think taking their existence away to satisfy the demand is unethical. The pain and suffering that comes with it is.

Yes, your view in that murder thread wasn't too popular :smile: I'm 100% with you on prioritising suffering though.

So, suppose that someone responds with lethal force towards another because it was the only way to avoid experiencing extreme physical pain. Would you say that this constitutes strict proportionality? — TheHedoMinimalist

I see where you're going with that question. If one believes that deadly force is justified if the only way to avoid experiencing extreme physical pain, they cannot oppose abortion.

Physical pain is unpleasant, and explaining how matter can have unpleasant sensations is the hard part. The "illusion" of being in pain seems to also be unpleasant. So what exactly is calling it an illusion bringing to the table?

I don't think consciousness is immaterial, but I don't think dennett is right either. Explanatory power is the measure of any hypothesis. — Mijin

I agree. I don't think consciousness is immaterial either, and saying that consciousness is an illusion is unhelpful, and it comes across as an abuse of language.

The left/right politics is how we deal with this mess now it's happened. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Saying that, the question of whether reproduction should be regulated i.e. child limits, is a political question.

From your previous posts I take it you don't agree with regulation? Despite us both agreeing it would prevent many people living a life of suffering?

The left/right politics is how we deal with this mess now it's happened.

It seems about right to me. In view of evolution (including by-products of gene survival traits) being an explanation for pretty much everything about us, I think it reasonable to suspect the same of our experience.

How could you know? Sure there are indicators but that's all they are. An alleged well-off child could be born with a debilitating defect or have an accident that will be with them their entire life. An alleged poor or unfortunate child can end up being a genius or win the lottery or something. You never know. Just Google "rich people born poor", for a few examples. It's rare, no doubt. But it happens. — Outlander

You cannot know for sure, but a decision on whether to procreate could be made on the most likely outcome. Whether most lives are net positive or negative could provide strong guidance.

Furthermore, why is "procreation that leads to a life of mostly pleasure" right? Is there some religious basis for this? A "soul" being rewarded with the pleasures of this world? If not, many would liken all of us, rich or poor, to little more than slightly-advanced animals living a meaningless existence of chasing shiny objects. — Outlander

It's standard utilitarian thought that what ultimately matters is pleasure and suffering. I think at the very least they are the most important considerations. I don't think I can prove this as objective moral truth, but it seems right to me.

Regardless, who are you to "gamble" with a life, be it divine or animalistic. Just someone who can- simply because you can at that moment. What meaning is there at all from that standpoint? — Outlander

As aforesaid, it could be argued that you should gamble when the odds are in your favour but not when the odds are against you. On the other hand it could be argued that the stakes should be taken into account.

I don't understand where imagination would come from if not from evolution (including by-products of other evolutionary traits). What do you mean by universal emergence?

In my view, procreation that leads to a life of mostly suffering is wrong, and procreation that leads to a life of mostly pleasure is right. The question is, when, if at all, we should take the gamble.

Following a different path, these things could have been created sooner, and/or have lead to better creations.

I cannot see a flaw in your argument; the EM would provide more preference satisfaction than RL.

However, I believe preference theory is built on air. Positive and negative experience is all that matters.

I was pre-empting an argument that any finite suffering will always be outweighed by the infinite joy of the afterlife.

By the same token, it would not be all-loving of an all-powerful god to allow eternal suffering [in the afterlife] for a finite offence.

Given the mystery of consciousness, the possibility that all matter is sentient to some extent (panpsychism), is taken seriously by philosophers. Notwithstanding, I think it is most probable that consciousness is unique to brains, and evolved to aid in gene survival.

We were only given it to increase the survival chances of the genes. This is all evolution cares about; it doesn't care about our suffering (some people's being unbearable).

I think the best negative utilitarian utility monster would be a monster that suffers greater than any other being, but they would get much less utility from each unit of a resource than anyone else. I would still say the criticism fails.

It is possible for an all-loving god to allow evil, despite having the power to stop it. However, considering that people suffer in hell for eternity for finite offences, it does seem improbable that they would allow this.

When I say inheritable, I don't mean that they are always inherited. It just means that we have an increased chance of inheriting the optimistic/pessimistic trait of our parents.

I have been meaning to read up on gene editing, but it seems clear that this has better potential to eliminate suffering than promoting antinatalism.

Yes, optimism and pessimism are inheritable.

David identifies as a 'soft antinatalist'. While he acknowledges that procreating is wrong, he believes that as the genes of the optimists will be passed on as opposed to that of the pessimist, antinatalism is doomed to failure, and genetically editing out suffering is our only hope.

A Negative Utilitarian focuses on reducing suffering. If a potential life is likely to be net suffering, it would be consistent for them to oppose its birth.

As libertarians want to minimize state intervention, it would be consistent with their position, and if permitting this would maximize happiness and well-being it would be consistent with utilitarianism.

The libertarian could argue that as it's a voluntary interaction, the state should not interfere with people's free choices. This could be on the basis that choice is in itself valuable, or that choice leads to something that is valuable, eg. happiness/well-being.

The utilitarian could argue that the result leads to less people being brought into existence, and that the happiness/well-being experience by the female drug addicts receiving the $300 would pale in comparison to the happiness/well-being that would otherwise be experienced by the unborn. Alternatively they could argue that were the female drug addicts to reproduce, the potential persons would have such a poor quality of life, that it would maximize happiness/well-being the most by permitting the female drug addicts to receive the $300 and guaranteeing that the potential persons do not come into existence.

Suffering focused ethics are a minority view, especially antinatalism etc.

While you should disengage when it becomes too stressful, without challenge these views would be reinforced within an echo chamber. This would be unhelpful for either side of the argument, provided their goal is the truth.

Actually, Alex O'Connor (CosmicSkeptic on YouTube) is to release a video on why he believe death is not bad for those that die. Apparently he is delaying its release due to the sensitivities with the pandemic.

You have done a good job of tackling some standard arguments against your proposition. Others have raised the point that if murder was normalised there would be negative knock-on effects. Maybe I am missing something, but surely the knock-on effects of normalising causing suffering, would rise equally.

The Asymmetry does appear to be his main argument against procreation. Though he makes a point in his book and his interviews to say that even if the Asymmetry is not accepted, the other arguments (the poor quality of most lives being hidden by an optimism bias, the sacrifice of the minority that will suffer so that others can exist) would nevertheless support antinatalism. He pre-empted that even Negative Utilitarians would struggle to accept the Asymmetry.

It can be easy, in any philosophical topic, to be bogged down in word semantics. Whether or not it is 'bad' that no life exists on a foreign planet, I maintain that if every life that could be created would experience net positive, it would be the morally correct thing to bring them into existence.

The formula looks sound. I cannot think of a way for the 'overwhelming factors' to fail, and I cannot think of any others. :up:

Contrary to Benatar's Asymmetry, I believe it is the net experience that matters. To take it to the extremes to prove my point, I would take some minor negative experiences for a life otherwise full of pleasure, but I would (obviously) not take some minor positive experiences for a life otherwise full of pain.

The trouble is procreation is a gamble, and I believe there is a fair chance of creating someone with a net negative experience, and a chance (however small) of creating someone with with a life of general suffering. I don't believe it is right to take this gamble, so I agree with your conclusion, if not your path to getting there.