This line of argument also supports the extermination of all living beings because it prevents all future suffering. Think about that before you use it.
I see it a bit different. Using your own sentence structure:
"The line of argument supports the prevention of the existence of an undefined number of living beings to max. the quality of life of other existing living beings."
The argument doesn't seem to me as simple as you are portraying it and I don't see where you got the extermination part from.
> the life of such pig would not even begin, which is a good thing
The comment I was responding to said nothing about increasing the quality of life of any living beings. It only asserted that non-existence is a good thing. I made the assumption that they came to that conclusion based on the reasoning that a pig that does not exist cannot suffer. I made the extension that you can also prevent suffering by immediately ending a life. Yes, there is a distinction between failing to breed another generation and immediately killing all members of the current generation but the end result is the same.
> It only asserted that non-existence is a good thing
this phrasing is really disingenuous. What I said was non-existence in case of farm pigs is a good thing. Try to make less sweeping over-generalized statements, especially when responding to people who aren't doing that
> I made the extension that you can also prevent suffering by immediately ending a life
oh cool thought, did you just bring that up to argue with yourself? Because no one said anything like that prior.
No, because I never claimed that preventing suffering is the only goal. Just add one more goal which is potentially experiencing pleasure then you can justify most lives, well except that of those pigs
In which case it becomes an optimization problem where you have to find the optimal number of living beings to exterminate in order to provide the maximal amount of pleasure for those remaining. Not any better.
> find the optimal number of living beings to exterminate
you are conflating birth control with "exterminate", not the same thing. Birth control has its roles, does it not?
> in order to provide the maximal amount of pleasure for those remaining.
I never said that, pleasure is an example, society is optimized for way more variables that suffering and pleasure.
In the context of farm animals, it looks like the only purpose for the pigs to exist is to be food, then when the food is over-produced and wasted, then you have to question why have that many of them born into a miserable life then die pointlessly.
> Not any better
just say it like that, no explanation? What is not good? Optimization?
Morality doesn’t exist. It arises from the emotional responses of those with the power to prevent actions they disagree with or perpetuate ones they do agree with. Social contract theory.
