Claim: It's wrong to deny potential future animals a chance to be born.


If we don't breed these animals into existence, then they never get the chance to exist, which is worse for them then existing for a short time and dying.

Problems With This Argument

1. We can justify anything like this

If a being has not been conceived, it can't have any rights because it doesn't exist. You cannot wrong something that does not exist.

This is because it is a potentially infinite space. With any action, any butterfly effect could cause a being to either be born or not in the future, which then has further implications. Therefore, you can't even sharpen a pencil without it having infinite ethical implications. But if ethics means anything, we can't say that all actions are then equally wrong. Killing someone, sharpening a pencil, eating a vegan sandwich, and eating a steak are all equally "infinitely" unethical under this framework. So now murder is now moral.

2. This directly justifies dog fighting and other heinous things

Most dogs are bred into existence just to engage in dog fighting. Therefore, if you believe that mere existence is the only important consideration, then that makes dog fighting moral. In fact, one can then justify child abuse, because you at least gave the human a chance to live. So as long as you can convince yourself that you only had a kid in order to abuse them, it's now moral. This seems highly unethical and (in cases when similar things have really happened) it's rather disturbing.

So no, merely giving an animal (or any being) a chance to exist doesn't make whatever you do to that being moral.

Markdown - (copy 📋)
Rich Text
[Claim: It's wrong to deny potential future animals a chance to be born.](