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.
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.