tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5593026103512648416.post7614456895857904568..comments2024-03-05T05:13:14.325-08:00Comments on A Meaningful Life, A Better World: Why I am not a utilitarianMatt Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12389020149472026193noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5593026103512648416.post-6098637342491613672019-04-29T18:44:39.390-07:002019-04-29T18:44:39.390-07:00Thanks for the post. :) Your position makes sense....Thanks for the post. :) Your position makes sense.<br /><br />I agree that 10,000,001 muscle spasms don't outweigh torture. I'm uncertain whether 3^^^3 muscle spasms do, but that doesn't make much difference for most practical questions.<br /><br />If I thought insects were morally insignificant, I would probably agree that advocacy around them is harmful (unless I thought other insect-like things were still morally significant and that concern for one would sufficiently bleed into concern for the other).<br /><br />A possible "crux" for our disagreement is: I think intense suffering by insects counts in the same moral bucket as intense suffering by a human, just downweighted somewhat to account for the simpler nervous system. (I think this is similar to how you regard human vs chicken torture.) Relative to the insect, the intense suffering is unbearable, and the insect would do anything to make it stop (at least implicitly; the insect can't verbally conceptualize such tradeoffs). In case it's of interest, my view is explained more fully in the section "Does NPC suffering aggregate?" of "Do Video-Game Characters Matter Morally?". (I'm not including the link in case a spam detector wouldn't like it.)Brian Tomasikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10510289096715716609noreply@blogger.com