Isn’t a direct consequence of (2) is that those animals are better off dead than alive and so, if the opportunity to (relatively costlessly) kill some of them arises, one should do so?
I don’t know whether we’d get to absurdum, so far I’m trying to figure out how far you (that is, the general-vegetarian “you”) are willing to take this reasoning.
Well, not quite. If you think being dead has positive utility for this creature, this positive utility is not necessarily small. If so, you need to weight the issues in killing against that positive utility.
For example, let’s take “death is painless”—actually, if the negative utility of the painful death is not as great as the positive utility of dying, you would still be justified and obligated to impose that painful death upon the creature as the net result is positive utility.
Isn’t a direct consequence of (2) is that those animals are better off dead than alive and so, if the opportunity to (relatively costlessly) kill some of them arises, one should do so?
Is that supposed to be reductio ad absurdum? Euthanizing feral pets is standard. I’d do the same for livestock.
I don’t know whether we’d get to absurdum, so far I’m trying to figure out how far you (that is, the general-vegetarian “you”) are willing to take this reasoning.
If you can’t otherwise improve their lives, the death is painless, and murder isn’t independently bad.
Well, not quite. If you think being dead has positive utility for this creature, this positive utility is not necessarily small. If so, you need to weight the issues in killing against that positive utility.
For example, let’s take “death is painless”—actually, if the negative utility of the painful death is not as great as the positive utility of dying, you would still be justified and obligated to impose that painful death upon the creature as the net result is positive utility.
I was just giving what would be sufficient conditions, but they aren’t all necessarily necessary.