Oh just to be clear, I am a vegan. I don’t eat any animal products meat, dairy, eggs, or otherwise and have been doing so for 3+ years. I also fully agree with you that it would be a good thing if more people went vegan for all the reasons you mentioned.
My article is more of an explanation for why there are so many people, including intellectuals, who agree with vegans that factory farming is wrong or even that eating meat is wrong, but don’t change behaviorally. My argument, to restate it, is that purely that from a personal cost-benefit standpoint, going vegan is irrational since it imposes a lot of personal costs and doesn’t have any significant positive impact on animal welfare.
This seems like a bit of a confused post, I suspect due to it being messy regarding what axioms/perspectives it is considering.
My argument, to restate it, is that purely that from a personal cost-benefit standpoint, going vegan is irrational since it imposes a lot of personal costs and doesn’t have any significant positive impact on animal welfare.
I don’t think the first part of this was clear in the post. I suspect it’s due to different meanings of “rational” (ie idealised economic actor vs member of the rationalist community). It doesn’t seem surprising though—if the costs were lower than the benefits, more people would do it. Not sure what you’re getting at or what the implication is.
As for the second part, not sure this follows. It seems irrelevant when considered from a purely egoist perspective. If it’s not a purely egoist perspective, eating a normal non-vegan seems pretty rational after all.
It’s a small fraction of total suffering, but in absolute numbers it doesn’t seem terrible. I’m sure the 42 animals are pretty happy to not suffer, seems significant to them! You may think there are more effective ways to assist, but if I could save 42 animals from suffering in my personal life I would.
Oh just to be clear, I am a vegan. I don’t eat any animal products meat, dairy, eggs, or otherwise and have been doing so for 3+ years. I also fully agree with you that it would be a good thing if more people went vegan for all the reasons you mentioned.
My article is more of an explanation for why there are so many people, including intellectuals, who agree with vegans that factory farming is wrong or even that eating meat is wrong, but don’t change behaviorally. My argument, to restate it, is that purely that from a personal cost-benefit standpoint, going vegan is irrational since it imposes a lot of personal costs and doesn’t have any significant positive impact on animal welfare.
This seems like a bit of a confused post, I suspect due to it being messy regarding what axioms/perspectives it is considering.
I don’t think the first part of this was clear in the post. I suspect it’s due to different meanings of “rational” (ie idealised economic actor vs member of the rationalist community). It doesn’t seem surprising though—if the costs were lower than the benefits, more people would do it. Not sure what you’re getting at or what the implication is.
As for the second part, not sure this follows. It seems irrelevant when considered from a purely egoist perspective. If it’s not a purely egoist perspective, eating a normal non-vegan seems pretty rational after all.
It’s a small fraction of total suffering, but in absolute numbers it doesn’t seem terrible. I’m sure the 42 animals are pretty happy to not suffer, seems significant to them! You may think there are more effective ways to assist, but if I could save 42 animals from suffering in my personal life I would.