The idea that suffering can have positive effects is in no way mutually exclusive with the idea that it is itself bad.
Here we’re discussing definitions, I think. If you assume suffering is bad a priori, that seems to me to preclude there being (worthwhile) benefits from suffering. I find that difficult to swallow.
And this isn’t just “surgery is worth it, even with the pain, but it would be more worth it without the pain”- this is looking at “no pain no gain” situations. Do they exist? I strongly suspect so. (I think many people overestimate how many there are, but that doesn’t mean something things aren’t better with a sting.)
It shows that the benefit to the people is greater than the pain to the people. The pain of the pig is ignored. Considering the vast majority of the pain is to the pig, that’s a pretty big oversight.
It shows that the benefit to the people is greater than the pain to the people.
No, it doesn’t say anything about pain to humans. It shows that people collectively consider it worth it. That information is valuable when considering questions like:
Is there any reason why the suffering of factory-farmed animals would be worth it?
But, if you could pith the pig painlessly (or engineer pigs that did not suffer while their meat is grown / harvested), then the quality of the bacon would not alter (unless you’re a sadist).
The idea that suffering can have positive effects is in no way mutually exclusive with the idea that it is itself bad.
Is there any reason why the suffering of factory-farmed animals would be worth it?
Here we’re discussing definitions, I think. If you assume suffering is bad a priori, that seems to me to preclude there being (worthwhile) benefits from suffering. I find that difficult to swallow.
And this isn’t just “surgery is worth it, even with the pain, but it would be more worth it without the pain”- this is looking at “no pain no gain” situations. Do they exist? I strongly suspect so. (I think many people overestimate how many there are, but that doesn’t mean something things aren’t better with a sting.)
Bacon.
This is to say economics says yes. People’s observable behavior indicates that they do consider the process worth it.
It shows that the benefit to the people is greater than the pain to the people. The pain of the pig is ignored. Considering the vast majority of the pain is to the pig, that’s a pretty big oversight.
No, it doesn’t say anything about pain to humans. It shows that people collectively consider it worth it. That information is valuable when considering questions like:
But, if you could pith the pig painlessly (or engineer pigs that did not suffer while their meat is grown / harvested), then the quality of the bacon would not alter (unless you’re a sadist).
The question was ‘worth it?’, not intrinsically desirable.
I’m sure there is an obligatory link in there somewhere. ;)