@alexanderrm​, we did the fractional moral weight thing last year; as with the infamous dust speck argument, giving any moral worth to chickens allows you to overpower humanity by assembling a sufficient number of them and threatening to make the world’s biggest plate of wings. From last year:

I would like to publicly state that I would not kill a single person to save any number of chickens. Utilitarian consequentalists who disagree and wish to bite that bullet can do so in the notes.

A couple of people did bite that bullet and indicated they would trade a random human life for a certain (large) integer number of chicken lives.

Note: this question assumes the chickens are bred specifically for the purposes of this thought experiment and has no impact on the overall chicken species or anything else outside the thought experiment.

It’s basically a trolley problem, but the second track has like a billion chooks.

The ethics change considerably from the trolley problem when somebody deliberately ties five people down in order to force you to kill the other man. At that point, you’re changing from 5:1 to 5:(an arbitrarily long line of 1, repeating every time I need somebody killed.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s