deciding to kill something, because you think it is best for them
My argument is that from a utilitarian viewpoint it’s not just best for them, but it prevents future suffering for all their offspring. Not just the suffering of one, but of untold millions.
Obviously I don’t think a utilitarian approach like this is the right way to proceed.
And my point is just, that valuing that utilitarian viewpoint over other things, is not a stance a lot of people consider ethical. It is a choice, to end up with that being the “end result” of ethical thinking - there is no single right answer. Someone might think that the suffering caused to an individual, by them being killed without consent, weights more than potential suffering that might happen in the future. Then we get to how we define suffering. And then… ethics are always a mess, with only increasing amount of difficult questions, and no “absolutely correct” answers to any of them.
My argument is that from a utilitarian viewpoint it’s not just best for them, but it prevents future suffering for all their offspring. Not just the suffering of one, but of untold millions.
Obviously I don’t think a utilitarian approach like this is the right way to proceed.
And my point is just, that valuing that utilitarian viewpoint over other things, is not a stance a lot of people consider ethical. It is a choice, to end up with that being the “end result” of ethical thinking - there is no single right answer. Someone might think that the suffering caused to an individual, by them being killed without consent, weights more than potential suffering that might happen in the future. Then we get to how we define suffering. And then… ethics are always a mess, with only increasing amount of difficult questions, and no “absolutely correct” answers to any of them.
WILL happen in the future. Is guaranteed to happen in the future.
Not even sun rising tomorrow is guaranteed, in philosophy.
Practically speaking.