I’m genuinely unsure, not least because of your perplexing unpacking of “biscuit”.
Both examples are unpleasant; I don’t have a reliable intuition as to which is more so if indeed either is.
I have some vague notion that if I watch the real-harm video that might somehow be interpreted as endorsing real-harm more strongly than if I watch the fake-harm vide, like through ratings or download monitoring or something, which inclines me to the fake-harm video. Though whether I’m motivated by the vague belief that such differential endorsement might cause more harm to animals, or by the vague belief that it might cause more harm to my status, I’m again genuinely unsure of. In the real world I usually assume that when I’m not sure it’s the latter, but this is such a contrived scenario that I’m not confident of that either.
If I assume the biscuit is a reward of some sort, then maybe that reward is enough to offset the differential endorsement above, and maybe it isn’t.
I’m genuinely unsure, not least because of your perplexing unpacking of “biscuit”.
Both examples are unpleasant; I don’t have a reliable intuition as to which is more so if indeed either is.
I have some vague notion that if I watch the real-harm video that might somehow be interpreted as endorsing real-harm more strongly than if I watch the fake-harm vide, like through ratings or download monitoring or something, which inclines me to the fake-harm video. Though whether I’m motivated by the vague belief that such differential endorsement might cause more harm to animals, or by the vague belief that it might cause more harm to my status, I’m again genuinely unsure of. In the real world I usually assume that when I’m not sure it’s the latter, but this is such a contrived scenario that I’m not confident of that either.
If I assume the biscuit is a reward of some sort, then maybe that reward is enough to offset the differential endorsement above, and maybe it isn’t.