Look's like some fun stuff in the first issue! But this "dilemma" is easy isn't it?
> There is widespread agreement that coercive force may be used to prevent people from seriously and wrongfully harming others. But what about when those others are non-human animals?
Just take it to extremes:
If one person had their finger on a button to instantaneously destroy the entire remaining Amazon rainforests, and killing them were the only way of preventing it, then surely it's clear that we'd all have a moral duty to kill them? No one person's life is worth that much eternal extinction.
> There is widespread agreement that coercive force may be used to prevent people from seriously and wrongfully harming others. But what about when those others are non-human animals?
Just take it to extremes:
If one person had their finger on a button to instantaneously destroy the entire remaining Amazon rainforests, and killing them were the only way of preventing it, then surely it's clear that we'd all have a moral duty to kill them? No one person's life is worth that much eternal extinction.