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.
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.