I think this misses opportunity costs. If farm animals have net positive lives, then accidentally filling the universe with animal farms would be better than accidentally filling it with paperclips. But we might want to use the universe for something else.
Accordingly, the fork in this naive imaginary community of naive idealized utilitarians shouldn’t be whether people think farm animals have net-positive or net-negative lives. It should be whether those lives are better or worse than the lives that would otherwise be supported by those resources, plus the improvement or degradation in lives that already exist, on the margin.
For example:
Alice thinks that farm animals have net negative lives, but farming mostly competes with wild animal habitat, and wild animals have worse lives than farm animals. So she eats more meat, on the margin.
Bob thinks that farm animals have net positive lives, but farming mostly competes with human habitat, and humans have better lives than farm animals. So he eats less meat, on the margin.
I wonder if that alters the 50⁄50 split imagined here? Evolution isn’t interested wild animal welfare, and farming isn’t interested in farm animal welfare. But humans are very interested in human welfare. So in our naive thought experiment, transferring resources from farm use to human use will be net positive for welfare, not a 50-50 coin toss.
I think this misses opportunity costs. If farm animals have net positive lives, then accidentally filling the universe with animal farms would be better than accidentally filling it with paperclips. But we might want to use the universe for something else.
Accordingly, the fork in this naive imaginary community of naive idealized utilitarians shouldn’t be whether people think farm animals have net-positive or net-negative lives. It should be whether those lives are better or worse than the lives that would otherwise be supported by those resources, plus the improvement or degradation in lives that already exist, on the margin.
For example:
Alice thinks that farm animals have net negative lives, but farming mostly competes with wild animal habitat, and wild animals have worse lives than farm animals. So she eats more meat, on the margin.
Bob thinks that farm animals have net positive lives, but farming mostly competes with human habitat, and humans have better lives than farm animals. So he eats less meat, on the margin.
I wonder if that alters the 50⁄50 split imagined here? Evolution isn’t interested wild animal welfare, and farming isn’t interested in farm animal welfare. But humans are very interested in human welfare. So in our naive thought experiment, transferring resources from farm use to human use will be net positive for welfare, not a 50-50 coin toss.