Most active commenters
  • dartos(4)

←back to thread

The shrimp welfare project

(benthams.substack.com)
81 points 0xDEAFBEAD | 13 comments | 18 Nov 24 14:44 UTC | HN request time: 0.419s | source | bottom
Show context
thinkingtoilet ◴[18 Nov 24 15:10 UTC] No.42172998[source]▶
I love articles like this that challenge the status quo of morality. I find my self asking the question, "Would I rather save a billion shrimp or one human?" and I honestly think I'm siding on the human. I'm not saying that answer is "correct". It's always good to think about these things and the point the author makes about shrimp being a test of our morality because they're so different is a good one.
replies(6): >>42173031 #>>42173080 #>>42173385 #>>42175436 #>>42175641 #>>42180356 #
1. barefoot ◴[18 Nov 24 15:13 UTC] No.42173031[source]▶
How about one million kittens or one human?
replies(5): >>42173059 #>>42173272 #>>42173347 #>>42173388 #>>42175917 #
2. dartos ◴[18 Nov 24 15:15 UTC] No.42173059[source]▶
Where did the kittens come from?

If they were spawned into existence for this thought experiment, then the human, probably.

But if even one of those kittens were mine, entire cities could be leveled before I let anyone hurt my kitten.

replies(3): >>42173282 #>>42173742 #>>42194099 #
3. saalweachter ◴[18 Nov 24 15:31 UTC] No.42173272[source]▶
Collectively we kill and eat around a billion rabbits a year, around 8 million in the US. They aren't kittens, but they do have a similar level of fluffy cuteness.

It's not quite "one million to one"; the meat from 1 million rabbits meets the caloric needs of around 2750 people for 1 year.

4. some_random ◴[18 Nov 24 15:32 UTC] No.42173282[source]▶
This brings up an interesting point, our view of morality is heavily skewed. If you made me choose between something bad happening to my partner or 10 random people, I would save my partner every time and I expect every normal person in the world to choose the same.
replies(1): >>42173324 #
5. dartos ◴[18 Nov 24 15:35 UTC] No.42173324{3}[source]▶
Well humans aren’t perfectly rational.

I wouldn’t think it moral to save my kitten over a random non-evil person, but I’d still do it.

replies(1): >>42175091 #
6. mihaic ◴[18 Nov 24 15:37 UTC] No.42173347[source]▶
In that case I actually ask "Who's the human?", and in about 80% of the time I'd pick the human.
7. HansardExpert ◴[18 Nov 24 15:40 UTC] No.42173388[source]▶
Still the human.

How about one million humans or one kitten?

Where is the cut-off point for you>?

8. hansvm ◴[18 Nov 24 16:09 UTC] No.42173742[source]▶
Also, where did the human come from? Are they already on their deathbed, prolonged in this thought experiment for only a few fleeting moments? Were they themselves a murderer?
replies(1): >>42175197 #
9. Iulioh ◴[18 Nov 24 18:07 UTC] No.42175091{4}[source]▶
It is a rational choice tho.

It wouldn't just hurt your partner, it would hurt you.

We know that following a "objective morality" the 10 people would be a better choice but it would hurt (indirectly) you.

replies(1): >>42175202 #
10. dartos ◴[18 Nov 24 18:15 UTC] No.42175197{3}[source]▶
None of that matters if my kitten is in danger!
11. dartos ◴[18 Nov 24 18:16 UTC] No.42175202{5}[source]▶
You’re right. Maybe rational was the wrong word.

Humans aren’t perfectly objective.

12. JumpCrisscross ◴[18 Nov 24 19:22 UTC] No.42175917[source]▶
One cat versus many humans. My spending on my cat makes the answer clear.
13. GJim ◴[20 Nov 24 14:16 UTC] No.42194099[source]▶
> entire cities could be leveled before I let anyone hurt my kitten

Allowing that kitten to live will cause untold suffering for other small mammals.

You have the power to stop that suffering!