I specified ignoring convenience. Is the lack of a clear action for Group B your true rejection? Would you actually try to minimize suffering in wild animals if you knew how to?
I’m interested in the intrinsic value of reducing suffering, which is why I posed the question. I wanted to know if you thought that the suffering of animals raised by humans is worse than the suffering of wild animals, all else being equal.
If you truly do care about the suffering of wild animals then I appreciate your consistency. I am not particularly bothered by fish getting eaten by sharks or zebras getting eaten by lions. I’m curious though, if you had sufficient resources, would you attempt to convert carnivorous animals to herbivores as well?
I think it is non-obvious that reducing predation is a worthwhile use of resources. I do appreciate your consistency in applying your altruistic principles though.
I specified ignoring convenience. Is the lack of a clear action for Group B your true rejection? Would you actually try to minimize suffering in wild animals if you knew how to?
I would definitely try to minimize suffering in wild animals if I knew how to. Would you?
And why would you ignore convenience?
I’m interested in the intrinsic value of reducing suffering, which is why I posed the question. I wanted to know if you thought that the suffering of animals raised by humans is worse than the suffering of wild animals, all else being equal.
If you truly do care about the suffering of wild animals then I appreciate your consistency. I am not particularly bothered by fish getting eaten by sharks or zebras getting eaten by lions. I’m curious though, if you had sufficient resources, would you attempt to convert carnivorous animals to herbivores as well?
Yes. Predation seems quite painful. Wouldn’t you agree?
I think it is non-obvious that reducing predation is a worthwhile use of resources. I do appreciate your consistency in applying your altruistic principles though.