So my gut reaction as a kind of consequentialist (Parfit-esque prioritarian) was to defend animals hunting one another with an appeal to nature. Thats no good. My second one was unintended consequences; which is shaky at best since were already blindly driving animals to extinction at an unprecedented rate, and we know that were destroying the biosphere that way. Maybe if we are going to meddle, we should do it to increase happiness (in the prioritarian way) in an intelligent and (better) controlled way. What do you all think of Pearces ideas? Any philosophical objections? (Especially those that might avoid an appeal to nature fallacy?)
Posted on: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 19:20:36 +0000
Trending Topics
© 2015