• bastion@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    It was three distinct points. But it wouldn’t matter if I did reason it out for you - your stance is emotive, and you won’t agree with me unless that viewpoint underlying your stance changes, and it won’t change due to someone reasoning it out for you.

    The slow grind of time, and the steady erosion by nature may cause you to change, though. Fortunately, whether it does or not, it’s basically irrelevant to me whether or not you believe or act as I do.

    • naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      The most charitable read I can see is

      1 - everyone dies 2 - I assume without evidence that death is generally unpleasant and painful 3 - I assume without evidence animals don’t have complex internal worlds and desires for things like freedom or long life 4 - I assume the lives animals lead in farms is good 5 - I am a naive utiliarian and see no issues with mere addition/the repugnant conclusion 6 - a quick death does not count negatively in a utiliarian sensw C - therefore we should breed as many animals as we can, kill them whenever convenient as long as they are not old, and this makes the world better.

      I do not see how 1 through 3 connect to 4 through 6. And 4 through 6 is just the repugnant conclusion.