"I would rather have the beauty AND suffering as cause and effect"
If you're interested, here's a video that makes a strong case for why preserving the package-deal is an unconscionable view in a world like the one we find ourselves in, where nothing is guaranteed and where no limitations exist on the magnitudes of suffering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyA_eF7W02s
If you had endured any of the video's "Warning: Graphic Content" bits that other individuals endure routinely, I somehow doubt that you'd be as taken in by the lessons on display in the 'The Giver'.
Ideally, let's say that you, as an individual, get to forward-program your own misery-to-happiness ratio over the course of your life, ensuring that some suffering would still exist in the universe (as per your preference). If this were possible to do, would you still think it necessary to program other individuals' ratios? If everyone else picked total non-stop bliss for themselves, do you think it's morally appropriate to forcefully alter their preferences, because 'The Giver' has a certain (non-moral) charm to it?
I actually would distribute the opiates, simply because doing so would currently be the only way to discontinue intolerably severe levels of suffering being endured daily by humans and non-human animals. If eliminating harms of such magnitude can be done in one-fell-swoop fashion, rather than by stretching out the process for decades, centuries or longer, that's a distinction that EAs should not just handwave. In a hypothetical world where no organism suffers in unspeakable ways, then sure, the opiates shouldn't be viewed as the go-to solution. But it's conditional.
Consider what the unconditional refusal to distribute the opiates entails, in the world as it actually is. It entails tolerating tradeoffs wherein the worst off are left to deal with more of the same (including the same gradual slow-paced reductions) so that others' positive desires can be realized, which wouldn't have been realized had the opiates package-deal kicked in.
Are you more concerned with the latter group's interests because the latter group makes up (arguably) a larger segment of the total population? Keep in mind that they are (we are) not enduring anything remotely close to famine & the like. If the shoe were on the other foot and we were in the worst-off category, we'd want the torture-level harms ended for us even if it could only be ended by way of opiates for all. That's how potent the suffering of the worst off is. Until this changes, I'm not prepared to approve any "Desires > Aversions" tradeoff and I don't think the average EA should be either.
Of course, this doesn't mean that crude hedonism should be viewed as the appropriate theory of wellbeing for humans. But that's because you can still get "Aversions > Desires" type priorities under non-hedonic preferentism.
"I would rather have the beauty AND suffering as cause and effect"
If you're interested, here's a video that makes a strong case for why preserving the package-deal is an unconscionable view in a world like the one we find ourselves in, where nothing is guaranteed and where no limitations exist on the magnitudes of suffering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyA_eF7W02s
If you had endured any of the video's "Warning: Graphic Content" bits that other individuals endure routinely, I somehow doubt that you'd be as taken in by the lessons on display in the 'The Giver'.
Ideally, let's say that you, as an individual, get to forward-program your own misery-to-happiness ratio over the course of your life, ensuring that some suffering would still exist in the universe (as per your preference). If this were possible to do, would you still think it necessary to program other individuals' ratios? If everyone else picked total non-stop bliss for themselves, do you think it's morally appropriate to forcefully alter their preferences, because 'The Giver' has a certain (non-moral) charm to it?
I actually would distribute the opiates, simply because doing so would currently be the only way to discontinue intolerably severe levels of suffering being endured daily by humans and non-human animals. If eliminating harms of such magnitude can be done in one-fell-swoop fashion, rather than by stretching out the process for decades, centuries or longer, that's a distinction that EAs should not just handwave. In a hypothetical world where no organism suffers in unspeakable ways, then sure, the opiates shouldn't be viewed as the go-to solution. But it's conditional.
Consider what the unconditional refusal to distribute the opiates entails, in the world as it actually is. It entails tolerating tradeoffs wherein the worst off are left to deal with more of the same (including the same gradual slow-paced reductions) so that others' positive desires can be realized, which wouldn't have been realized had the opiates package-deal kicked in.
Are you more concerned with the latter group's interests because the latter group makes up (arguably) a larger segment of the total population? Keep in mind that they are (we are) not enduring anything remotely close to famine & the like. If the shoe were on the other foot and we were in the worst-off category, we'd want the torture-level harms ended for us even if it could only be ended by way of opiates for all. That's how potent the suffering of the worst off is. Until this changes, I'm not prepared to approve any "Desires > Aversions" tradeoff and I don't think the average EA should be either.
Of course, this doesn't mean that crude hedonism should be viewed as the appropriate theory of wellbeing for humans. But that's because you can still get "Aversions > Desires" type priorities under non-hedonic preferentism.