In the face of such a negative reaction I would probably just continue to eat meat around your family and (optionally) donate to some animal welfare charities. Personally abstaining some fraction of the time isn’t that impactful and it seems very costly to you/your family.
Not suggesting people should learn from me, just saying what I did.
I got similar reactions from my family and what I did was keep reducing the number of animals I abstain from (originally I thought crustaceans can’t suffer, so I kept eating them but eventually I told my family that I won’t eat them either, and then I later cut even bivalves to become full vegan). Besides sticking with my dietary choice, I kept engaging in debates with them. I even have to distance myself a bit from them. It was a few painful years, but they have eventually accepted my change and even got influenced by me. Two of my family members reduced thei consumption of animal products (one became vegetarian), my mother agrees to slaughter fish in more humane ways.
I think the calculus doesn’t only involve the suffering induced vs hassle caused by the conflicts. The value one signals might be significant, or maybe the dominant effect in some cases.
Hi! This is a common action by many and at times me as well. I agree the disutility of conflict is perhaps not worth the gain in reduced suffering when I’ve already cut meat out of my diet ~95% of the time. Really appreciate your comment! I think it’s a hard bullet to bite and the post’s was to highlight how some actions prevalent in EA can be significantly harder for some.
In the face of such a negative reaction I would probably just continue to eat meat around your family and (optionally) donate to some animal welfare charities. Personally abstaining some fraction of the time isn’t that impactful and it seems very costly to you/your family.
Not suggesting people should learn from me, just saying what I did.
I got similar reactions from my family and what I did was keep reducing the number of animals I abstain from (originally I thought crustaceans can’t suffer, so I kept eating them but eventually I told my family that I won’t eat them either, and then I later cut even bivalves to become full vegan). Besides sticking with my dietary choice, I kept engaging in debates with them. I even have to distance myself a bit from them. It was a few painful years, but they have eventually accepted my change and even got influenced by me. Two of my family members reduced thei consumption of animal products (one became vegetarian), my mother agrees to slaughter fish in more humane ways.
I think the calculus doesn’t only involve the suffering induced vs hassle caused by the conflicts. The value one signals might be significant, or maybe the dominant effect in some cases.
Hi! This is a common action by many and at times me as well. I agree the disutility of conflict is perhaps not worth the gain in reduced suffering when I’ve already cut meat out of my diet ~95% of the time. Really appreciate your comment! I think it’s a hard bullet to bite and the post’s was to highlight how some actions prevalent in EA can be significantly harder for some.
Makes sense, thanks for sharing such an interesting post!