|
Mmm, it sounds like we have some difference of principle, though not much in practice. I think I don’t see competing interests as zero-sum in the way you seem to. That is, suppose A desires to kill B, and B desires to kill A, but neither A nor B desires to die. These interests are irreconcilable. “A and B kill each other with equal probability” is a potential resolution to the dilemma, but to my mind, that does not make it morally neutral. To wit, it is morally dispreferable to the universes where A and B resolve their differences, forget each other exists, hallucinate having succeeded in killing each other without actually doing so, and so on. The preferred resolutions may be outlandishly infeasible to implement, but that won’t ever convince me that they are all morally equivalent. Since we’re aligned on taking practical steps to minimize unnecessary suffering, we probably won’t gain anything from debating principles, but hopefully that helps you understand my surprise at your question. I think it’s likely that you do apply my sort of reasoning in other situations, as I likely do yours. Something to muse on, maybe. > This sounds like you would not have a problem running your own farm and eating your own livestock. No substantial moral problem, no. On the other hand I also have no substantial moral reason to do so, and it would be an unpleasant change to my current lifestyle :) |