3 upvotes, 0 direct replies (showing 0)
The referenced article gets around to some good points namely the general concept and importance of reducing suffering. This concept is an empirical guide for moral decisions / game theory.
But the quote above makes "mere effect" the important premise to counter. This just makes the topic strained and overly convoluted. "Mere effect" or other vague declarations of change aren't strong points of definite moral conclusions. They aren't worth considering outside a side note.
The notion of "mere effect ~ evil" is kindetgarten simplistic. It is interesting to note that if that premise were taken to its boundaries then the Universe is in every way evil. The Universe is all about destroying then creating replacement conditions. Entropy is the ultimate result.
Evolution by natural selection creates new lives through the countless deaths of other lives.
In the end morals aren't about ultimates or ideals but about specific contexts of suffering.
There's nothing here!