Thanks a lot for writing this up! This post contains many good thoughts; for example, I was intrigued by the thought that how we treat animals today might matter to how AI treats us in the future.
This post reminded me strongly of “How to create a vegan world” by Tobias Leenaert. In that book, Tobias argues that all progress toward veganism matters, be it people who reduce their meat consumption, the availability of good meat alternatives, moral progress, etc. Tobias compares the road to a vegan world with a long, stony, uphill path to a mountaintop. He says that it’s hard to get to the top directly or using just one motivation (e.g., an exclusively moral motivation). Instead, we need every small step on the way and all sources of support that we can get.
One reason that Tobias provides is that motivation often follows action[1]. It’s a lot easier to think kindly of animals after you treat them kindly. I believe that this has been true for me personally—I feel more morally responsible toward animals (and more critical of the other forms of exploitation that you mention in the post) after having changed my diet, even though that change was partially motivated by ecological reasons.
“How to create a vegan world” changed my thinking toward a more consequentialist approach. I’m putting more emphasis on the direct consequences that an action has on animals, and less on the motivation behind this action. In fact, the book made me a bit wary of people who think that moral reasons are the only valid way of helping animals.
Overall, I think that the intuitions expressed in this post, if true, should cause us to rethink our approach to meat alternatives. However, I’m currently leaning to think that meat alternatives support rather than hinder the moral case for stopping animal exploitation.
One reason that Tobias provides is that motivation often follows action[1]. It’s a lot easier to think kindly of animals after you treat them kindly. I believe that this has been true for me personally—I feel more morally responsible toward animals (and more critical of the other forms of exploitation that you mention in the post) after having changed my diet, even though that change was partially motivated by ecological reasons.
A third comment on this point! (I added this to my post’s counterargument section)
In fact, the book made me a bit wary of people who think that moral reasons are the only valid way of helping animals.
Not reading this particular book. But I have always been wary of this group of people. My post is motivated partly from the concern that we are almost purely their antithesis, with too little emphasis on moral/social changes.
Fai, thanks for your article. Interesting thoughts. I do think that my book might be interesting to you (Sjlver thanks for mentioning it) - it’s certainly relevant for this discussion. I give several examples in it of how moral attitude change is easier achieved after having alternatives (technological ones being one kind of them). I like what Sam Harris said (or quoted) somewhere: that cultivated meat could be the technological revolution that precedes the moral revolution. I think it’s entirely likely that moral arguments will more easily find a firm footing and be more palatable when people know they don’t have much to lose.
Thanks a lot for writing this up! This post contains many good thoughts; for example, I was intrigued by the thought that how we treat animals today might matter to how AI treats us in the future.
This post reminded me strongly of “How to create a vegan world” by Tobias Leenaert. In that book, Tobias argues that all progress toward veganism matters, be it people who reduce their meat consumption, the availability of good meat alternatives, moral progress, etc. Tobias compares the road to a vegan world with a long, stony, uphill path to a mountaintop. He says that it’s hard to get to the top directly or using just one motivation (e.g., an exclusively moral motivation). Instead, we need every small step on the way and all sources of support that we can get.
One reason that Tobias provides is that motivation often follows action[1]. It’s a lot easier to think kindly of animals after you treat them kindly. I believe that this has been true for me personally—I feel more morally responsible toward animals (and more critical of the other forms of exploitation that you mention in the post) after having changed my diet, even though that change was partially motivated by ecological reasons.
“How to create a vegan world” changed my thinking toward a more consequentialist approach. I’m putting more emphasis on the direct consequences that an action has on animals, and less on the motivation behind this action. In fact, the book made me a bit wary of people who think that moral reasons are the only valid way of helping animals.
Overall, I think that the intuitions expressed in this post, if true, should cause us to rethink our approach to meat alternatives. However, I’m currently leaning to think that meat alternatives support rather than hinder the moral case for stopping animal exploitation.
The book backs this claim with several sources; I just don’t have the book at hand at the moment and have to write this from memory.
A third comment on this point! (I added this to my post’s counterargument section)
Not reading this particular book. But I have always been wary of this group of people. My post is motivated partly from the concern that we are almost purely their antithesis, with too little emphasis on moral/social changes.
Fai, thanks for your article. Interesting thoughts. I do think that my book might be interesting to you (Sjlver thanks for mentioning it) - it’s certainly relevant for this discussion. I give several examples in it of how moral attitude change is easier achieved after having alternatives (technological ones being one kind of them). I like what Sam Harris said (or quoted) somewhere: that cultivated meat could be the technological revolution that precedes the moral revolution. I think it’s entirely likely that moral arguments will more easily find a firm footing and be more palatable when people know they don’t have much to lose.