I have been accused, by @Dan_Eastwood, of “overreaching” and “hav[ing] an axe to grind”, so I will take the liberty of expanding my point in my OP to explain why I find the line of argumentation contained in Rope’s article to be deeply problematical.
@sfmatheson and @misterme987, as you’ve also expressed positive views of Rope’s argument, this post is also aimed at you as well.
As a preliminary, if any of you three gentlemen can point to how Rope bases his argument on empirical evidence, this will largely undercut my line of thinking below.
-
If Rope’s argument does not rely on empirical evidence of the balance of suffering in the real world, then (if it holds at all), it must hold – that the lives of animals are ‘good’, regardless of this evidence.
-
If it holds regardless of this evidence, it must hold that lives of animals are ‘good’, even if these lives were continuous torment.
-
This would lead me to wonder what other atrocities you might be willing to allow an argument to redefine as ‘good’.
-
At which point, it would seem to be a good time to ask you gentlemen what continent you are on, so I can stay as far way from you as possible.
In case you haven’t caught on, the above was a variant of a argumentum ad absurdum – in this case arguing that an argument that would justify something horrifically bad is a horrifically bad argument.
My wording may have been a bit fanciful (it is an argument “to absurdity” after all), but my intent is very serious – that an argument that purports to be able to make claims about the real world, without basing those claims on empirical evidence of the real world, is deeply problematical – and can lead to some very dark places. I therefore do not consider it unreasonable to view such lines of argument with deep skepticism and suspicion.
(A counter-argument could be attempted, that the opinions of prominent theologians on which Rope bases his argument on, might be considered to have a basis, however loose, in empirical reality. I would counter that not a few prominent theologians have had some fairly extreme opinions – e.g. Martin Luther on Jews, John Knox on the place of women in society.)