Really? It’s starts with his title. Quantification is present throughout the article. One example:
In conclusion: it seems to me that if God has the moral right to create
even one mortal animal capable of suffering, then God would plausibly
be equally justified in creating two, or creating billions…
It’s throughout this thread. One example:
Proportion of suffering to what? Regardless, isn’t “proportion” explicitly quantitative?
Perhaps I was too subtle, because my comment is about why I don’t accept those denials.
If Rope claims to know that those criticizing his topic have to make an explicitly quantitative argument (below, “on average bring more disvalue than value”), then trying to explicitly deny that Rope’s own point is explicitly quantitative is absurd.
It certainly might make sense–if it had been presented in that conditional form. If I were using it, I also would be reluctant about expressing certainty about what anyone else has to argue. That’s why I emphasized the word “know” and added the question about omniscience. But that aside, where does @Rope use that basic form, specifically by including the very polite premise that you quoted (and I italicized and bolded)?
In addition to being explicitly conditional, to make any sense the condition would have to be something other than strawmanning to construct a false bifurcation. IOW, merely pointing out that scale confounds anyone’s attempt to determine if something is worse or not doesn’t make me or anyone else a “proponent.” Note also that Rope was specifying an explicitly quantitative requirement for those who dare to criticize.
Tim’s far more accurate title shows why this is a straw man:
I couldn’t agree more. Scale is just one of many problems.