I feel so uncomfortable whenever people discuss the so-called “meat eater problem.” Two counterarguments:
1 - This is a case of utilitarianism gone to far. Contrary to what one could conclude by applying pure utilitarianism, saving someone’s life is good even if they go on to do bad things. It is not the moral responsibility of GiveWell/GHD donors to worry about how ethical the people they help are.
2 - The conclusions of the argument are repugnant and absurd. The discussion always seems to come up in response to saving the lives of poor people in third world countries, and I have a sense that some people don’t react super viscerally to what’s actually being said because the humans in question are so distant from them.
Imagine this argument was being applied to people in your own country. For example, what if someone proposed encouraging doctors to go on strike in hopes that doing so would cause more people, some of whom eat meat, to die. That would be wrong.
What’s being proposed here is completely equivalent to that scenario. People are proposing denying people basic healthcare—healthcare which is broadly available to the global rich—in hopes that they die and therefore don’t eat meat.
Even the more nuanced proposals—such as eliminating support for physical healthcare in favor of mental healthcare—are repugnant. Imagine being a doctor and seeing two patients—one depressed and one dying of malaria. It might be okay to help the depressed person over the one with malaria for certain reasons (e.g., you only have the resources to help one and you’re more likely to succeed at helping the depressed person). It would wrong to help the person with depression in hopes that the person with malaria dies and stops eating meat.
Contrary to what one could conclude by applying pure utilitarianism, saving someone’s life is good even if they go on to do bad things.
Would you agree with saving the life of a suicide bomber who was about to be shot to prevent a detonation which would kill lots of people? In this case, saving the life of the bomber would imply not saving the lives of lots of people. If one prefers not to save the bomber in order to minimise the number of killings, one should also be open to not saving humans in order to minimise the number of animals killed?
The discussion always seems to come up in response to saving the lives of poor people in third world countries, and I have a sense that some people don’t react super viscerally to what’s actually being said because the humans in question are so distant from them.
The farmed animals in question are even more morally distant, so I am more worried about people being biased towards underestimating the effects on animals.
Vasco I’m not sure you’re responding to the main criticism here, which I think is this
“Imagine this argument was being applied to people in your own country. For example, what if someone proposed encouraging doctors to go on strike in hopes that doing so would cause more people, some of whom eat meat, to die. That would be wrong.”
Do you think this is wrong or not? I think there’s a tendancy here to dodge the hard close to home potentially repugnant scenarios while having tunnel vision on the effects on animals.
To square this circle I think there needs to be more emphasis on what the meat eating problem would actually mean if taken seriously in Western countries as well.
Do you think this is wrong or not? I think there’s a tendancy here to dodge the hard close to home potentially repugnant scenarios while having tunnel vision on the effects on animals.
I think increasing human mortality in high income countries is good nearterm (next few years) given the high consumption per capita of animal-based foods there. However, I do not know whether it is good or bad overall due to uncertain longer term effects (next few decades).
In practice, whether encouraging doctors to go on strike is good or bad does not matter. I want people to pursue not only good actions (relative to the conventionally neutral action of burning money), but also cost-effective actions, and I do not think going on strike would be the most cost-effective action for a doctor to help animals. A doctor in a high income country saves around “one or two” lives over their career, and I estimate one can neutralise the annual harms to animals of a random person in 2022 donating 2.98 $ to cage-free campaigns (and much less, just 0.0214 $, to the Shrimp Welfare Project). So, even assuming the harms per capita are kept constant (I guess they will tend to decrease in high income countries with further welfare reforms), for a life expectancy of 80 years, donating 358 $ (= (1 + 2)/2*80*2.98) to cage-free campaigns is enough to neutralise the negative impacts on farmed animals of the career of a doctor in a high income country. A doctor in such a country caring about animals can easily donate way more than that to cage-free campaigns. So they should focus on increasing their donations to the best animal welfare organisations to help animals as much as possible. I think going on a strike would slow down their career progression in expectation, or make them loose their job at worst, and therefore decrease their future income and donations. I would say doctors caring about animals should mostly optimise to save as many human lives as possible because that will tend to result in a faster career progression, and therefore greater earnings and donations.
To square this circle I think there needs to be more emphasis on what the meat eating problem would actually mean if taken seriously in Western countries as well.
If the meat eating problem was broadly taken seriously, negative factory-farming would quickly vanish (people who take it serious follow plant-based diets even now despite this being very uncommon in the general population), and therefore there would be no worries about saving human lives.
“I think increasing human mortality in high income countries is good nearterm (next few years) given the high consumption per capita of animal-based foods there. However, I do not know whether it is good or bad overall due to uncertain longer term effects (next few decades).”
Thanks Vasco I appreciate the honesty here, but find this extremely chilling.
Would you agree with saving the life of a suicide bomber who was about to be shot to prevent a detonation which would kill lots of people?
I would not agree with that—because time is limited and there are no other options. You could be trying to lobby for outlawing meat consumption instead of advocating for killing people in third world countries.
I would point out, though, that by your logic it actually would be good to save the life of the suicide bomber—by killing people they’d be saving animal lives.
The farmed animals in question are even more morally distant, so I am more worried about people being biased towards underestimating the effects on animals.
If this is really your concern, then would you be equally willing to advocate for denying healthcare to your loved ones? For example, if someone you loved (who was not vegetarian/vegan) was having a heart attack, would you forgo calling 911 in order to save the animals they might eat? Based on your answer to NickLaing’s response, it seems like the answer might be yes.
Additionally, from a utilitarian standpoint it’s a bit hard to see the difference between letting someone die and killing them. Do you intend on killing anyone or committing any acts of terrorism?
I would not agree with that—because time is limited and there are no other options. You could be trying to lobby for outlawing meat consumption instead of advocating for killing people in third world countries.
Advocating for prioritising more animal welfare and mental health over global health and development due to the meat-eating problem, relative to a situation where there was not this problem, is different from advocating for killing people.
I would point out, though, that by your logic it actually would be good to save the life of the suicide bomber—by killing people they’d be saving animal lives.
I think saving the suicide bomber may well decrease nearterm suffering (1st few years afterwards), but I do not know about the overall effect (1st few decades).
If this is really your concern, then would you be equally willing to advocate for denying healthcare to your loved ones? For example, if someone you loved (who was not vegetarian/vegan) was having a heart attack, would you forgo calling 911 in order to save the animals they might eat? Based on your answer to NickLaing’s response, it seems like the answer might be yes.
I estimate neutralising the harms caused to poultry birds and farmed aquatic animals per person in 2022 only requires donating 0.0214 $ to SWP. For a remaining life expectancy of 50 years, and constant harm to farmed animals over time, that would imply neutralising the negative impacts linked to saving a life with just 1.07 $ (= 0.0214*50). Saving the life of a person who is close to us can easily increase my donations by way more. Moreover, I would feel quite bad due to not saving them, which would also make me less productive, and therefore have a lower social impact, as I think this is driven by my work and donations.
Additionally, from a utilitarian standpoint it’s a bit hard to see the difference between letting someone die and killing them. Do you intend on killing anyone or committing any acts of terrorism?
No. I strongly endorse utilitarianism, and I think there is a huge difference between not saving someone in the other side of the world and killing someone. Utilitarism is all about assessing the consequences, and these are totally different. If I killed someone, I could easily go to prison, and therefore my donations and direct work would decrease a lot, thus majorly reducing my social impact. According to my estimate above, killing someone would only have to decrease my donations in expectation by 1.07 $ for it not to be worth it. In contrast, letting someone die in the other side of the world via not donating has no clear negative consequences for the potential donors. Lots of people buy expensive houses, whereas they could save tens of lives by buying cheaper houses, and donating the difference to GiveWell, which saves a life for 5 k$. However, such people are not arrested or considered anything close to evil.
I feel so uncomfortable whenever people discuss the so-called “meat eater problem.” Two counterarguments:
1 - This is a case of utilitarianism gone to far. Contrary to what one could conclude by applying pure utilitarianism, saving someone’s life is good even if they go on to do bad things. It is not the moral responsibility of GiveWell/GHD donors to worry about how ethical the people they help are.
2 - The conclusions of the argument are repugnant and absurd. The discussion always seems to come up in response to saving the lives of poor people in third world countries, and I have a sense that some people don’t react super viscerally to what’s actually being said because the humans in question are so distant from them.
Imagine this argument was being applied to people in your own country. For example, what if someone proposed encouraging doctors to go on strike in hopes that doing so would cause more people, some of whom eat meat, to die. That would be wrong.
What’s being proposed here is completely equivalent to that scenario. People are proposing denying people basic healthcare—healthcare which is broadly available to the global rich—in hopes that they die and therefore don’t eat meat.
Even the more nuanced proposals—such as eliminating support for physical healthcare in favor of mental healthcare—are repugnant. Imagine being a doctor and seeing two patients—one depressed and one dying of malaria. It might be okay to help the depressed person over the one with malaria for certain reasons (e.g., you only have the resources to help one and you’re more likely to succeed at helping the depressed person). It would wrong to help the person with depression in hopes that the person with malaria dies and stops eating meat.
Hi Rebecca.
Would you agree with saving the life of a suicide bomber who was about to be shot to prevent a detonation which would kill lots of people? In this case, saving the life of the bomber would imply not saving the lives of lots of people. If one prefers not to save the bomber in order to minimise the number of killings, one should also be open to not saving humans in order to minimise the number of animals killed?
The farmed animals in question are even more morally distant, so I am more worried about people being biased towards underestimating the effects on animals.
Vasco I’m not sure you’re responding to the main criticism here, which I think is this
“Imagine this argument was being applied to people in your own country. For example, what if someone proposed encouraging doctors to go on strike in hopes that doing so would cause more people, some of whom eat meat, to die. That would be wrong.”
Do you think this is wrong or not? I think there’s a tendancy here to dodge the hard close to home potentially repugnant scenarios while having tunnel vision on the effects on animals.
To square this circle I think there needs to be more emphasis on what the meat eating problem would actually mean if taken seriously in Western countries as well.
I think increasing human mortality in high income countries is good nearterm (next few years) given the high consumption per capita of animal-based foods there. However, I do not know whether it is good or bad overall due to uncertain longer term effects (next few decades).
In practice, whether encouraging doctors to go on strike is good or bad does not matter. I want people to pursue not only good actions (relative to the conventionally neutral action of burning money), but also cost-effective actions, and I do not think going on strike would be the most cost-effective action for a doctor to help animals. A doctor in a high income country saves around “one or two” lives over their career, and I estimate one can neutralise the annual harms to animals of a random person in 2022 donating 2.98 $ to cage-free campaigns (and much less, just 0.0214 $, to the Shrimp Welfare Project). So, even assuming the harms per capita are kept constant (I guess they will tend to decrease in high income countries with further welfare reforms), for a life expectancy of 80 years, donating 358 $ (= (1 + 2)/2*80*2.98) to cage-free campaigns is enough to neutralise the negative impacts on farmed animals of the career of a doctor in a high income country. A doctor in such a country caring about animals can easily donate way more than that to cage-free campaigns. So they should focus on increasing their donations to the best animal welfare organisations to help animals as much as possible. I think going on a strike would slow down their career progression in expectation, or make them loose their job at worst, and therefore decrease their future income and donations. I would say doctors caring about animals should mostly optimise to save as many human lives as possible because that will tend to result in a faster career progression, and therefore greater earnings and donations.
If the meat eating problem was broadly taken seriously, negative factory-farming would quickly vanish (people who take it serious follow plant-based diets even now despite this being very uncommon in the general population), and therefore there would be no worries about saving human lives.
“I think increasing human mortality in high income countries is good nearterm (next few years) given the high consumption per capita of animal-based foods there. However, I do not know whether it is good or bad overall due to uncertain longer term effects (next few decades).”
Thanks Vasco I appreciate the honesty here, but find this extremely chilling.
I would not agree with that—because time is limited and there are no other options. You could be trying to lobby for outlawing meat consumption instead of advocating for killing people in third world countries.
I would point out, though, that by your logic it actually would be good to save the life of the suicide bomber—by killing people they’d be saving animal lives.
If this is really your concern, then would you be equally willing to advocate for denying healthcare to your loved ones? For example, if someone you loved (who was not vegetarian/vegan) was having a heart attack, would you forgo calling 911 in order to save the animals they might eat? Based on your answer to NickLaing’s response, it seems like the answer might be yes.
Additionally, from a utilitarian standpoint it’s a bit hard to see the difference between letting someone die and killing them. Do you intend on killing anyone or committing any acts of terrorism?
Hi Rebecca.
Advocating for prioritising more animal welfare and mental health over global health and development due to the meat-eating problem, relative to a situation where there was not this problem, is different from advocating for killing people.
I think saving the suicide bomber may well decrease nearterm suffering (1st few years afterwards), but I do not know about the overall effect (1st few decades).
I estimate neutralising the harms caused to poultry birds and farmed aquatic animals per person in 2022 only requires donating 0.0214 $ to SWP. For a remaining life expectancy of 50 years, and constant harm to farmed animals over time, that would imply neutralising the negative impacts linked to saving a life with just 1.07 $ (= 0.0214*50). Saving the life of a person who is close to us can easily increase my donations by way more. Moreover, I would feel quite bad due to not saving them, which would also make me less productive, and therefore have a lower social impact, as I think this is driven by my work and donations.
No. I strongly endorse utilitarianism, and I think there is a huge difference between not saving someone in the other side of the world and killing someone. Utilitarism is all about assessing the consequences, and these are totally different. If I killed someone, I could easily go to prison, and therefore my donations and direct work would decrease a lot, thus majorly reducing my social impact. According to my estimate above, killing someone would only have to decrease my donations in expectation by 1.07 $ for it not to be worth it. In contrast, letting someone die in the other side of the world via not donating has no clear negative consequences for the potential donors. Lots of people buy expensive houses, whereas they could save tens of lives by buying cheaper houses, and donating the difference to GiveWell, which saves a life for 5 k$. However, such people are not arrested or considered anything close to evil.