Automobiles replacing horses: ethical consequences

cqthca@reddthat.com to Asklemmy@lemmy.ml – 43 points –

Did automobiles replacing horses, diminishing horse population, diminishing horse suffering -- as a consequence of work forced upon the animals. Is that moral win for horses; less suffering? Although their population is vastly smaller than 130 years ago.

48

You are viewing a single comment
View all comments

There's a philosophical paradox about this called the "repugnant conclusion". Technically, it's supposed to be about humans, not horses, but the logic is the same.

The main conclusion was that it's better to have a larger population that's worse off than a smaller one that's better off because it's better to exist than not exist.

Personally, I think the opposite is true, but there's not a "right" answer.

it's better to exist than not exist.

I mean, that's a pretty big assumption...and I'm not sure I agree with it!

Sum benefit of the world. For you today, you're still here so I assume you prefer to exist. How bad would things have to be before you prefer not to exist? That is your personal value of existence. Now apply that concept to everyone on earth.

Thinking about others is not the same math. I would rather have fewer people and better quality of life if I was still here but that is not a fair assessment because every person feels that way and most of us still want to be here.

Not that you support it, but who would it be better for, though? Plus if you didn't exist it's not worse or better for you because you don't exist in the first place.