I was wondering if anyone had an opinion on whether it is more ethical to eat 100% grass-fed beef/lamb from trusted suppliers in Australia (i.e. CCTV in slaughter houses and minimal transport) or more tofu/beans?
The pros of tofu/beans are clearly that it does not require taking the life from a cow or lamb who wants to live (although note that it takes lots of meals to cause the death of one cow), and also that it dramatically reduces carbon emissions.
The pros of instead eating 100% grass-fed beef/lamb are that it may help me avoid causing wild animal suffering, since crop cultivation causes potentially painful animal deaths. Although, it is worth noting that these animals may counterfactually die painful deaths in the wild anyway, and eating crops could also reduce wild animal populations who may have net negative lives. Eating beef/lamb once or twice a week would make it somewhat easier to stay healthy and potentially be more productive, and would make my parents less concerned about my health.
I am assuming that cows/lamb live a net neutral life, which seems to be a reasonable assumption for trusted suppliers. In terms of monetary cost, I think the cost of buying vitamin supplements is approximately cancelled out by the cost of buying meat. Also, I wouldn’t eat any meat out of the house, so you can assume that the impact of my eating on my friends is irrelevant.
Update—I just came across this article, which suggests that harvesting/pasture deaths are probably higher for beef than plants anyway, so it seems a pretty clear decision that being vegan is best in expectation!
From a consequentialist perspective, I think what matters more is how these options affect your psychology and epistemics (in particular, whether doing this will increase or decrease your speciesist bias, and whether doing this makes you uncomfortable), instead of the amount of suffering they directly produce or reduce. After all, your major impact on the world is from your words and actions, not what you eat.
That being said, I think non-consequentialist views deserve some considerations too, if only due to moral uncertainty. I’m less certain about what are their implications though, especially when taking into account things like WAS.
A few minor notes to your points:
In terms of monetary cost, I think the cost of buying vitamin supplements is approximately cancelled out by the cost of buying meat.
At least where I live, vitamin supplements can be super cheap if you go for the pharmaceutical products instead of those health products wrapped up in fancy packages. I’m taking 5 kinds of supplements simultaneously, and in total they cost me no more than (the RMB equivalent of) several dollars per month.
Also, I wouldn’t eat any meat out of the house, so you can assume that the impact of my eating on my friends is irrelevant.
It might be hard to hide that from your friends if you are eating meat when being alone. All the time people mindlessly say things they aren’t supposed to say. Also when your friends ask you about your eating habit you’ll have to lie, which might be a bad thing even for consequentialists.
I am assuming that cows/lamb live a net neutral life, which seems to be a reasonable assumption for trusted suppliers
Most informed people agree that beef and dairy cows live the best life of all factory farmed animals, more so than pigs, and much much more so than chickens.
Further, as you point out, beef and dairy cows produce much more food per animal (or suffering weighted days alive).
The pros of instead eating 100% grass-fed beef/lamb are that it may prevent wild animal suffering, since crop cultivation causes potentially painful animal deaths
I think you meant prevents painful deaths?
With this change, I don’t know, but this seems plausible. (I think amount of suffering depends on the land use and pesticides, but I don’t know if the scientific understanding is settled, and this subtopic may be distracting.)
I think you have a great question.
Note that extreme suffering in factory farming probably comes from very specific issues, concentrated in a few types of animals (caged hens suffering to death by the millions and other graphic situations).
This means that, if the assumptions in this discussion are true, and our concern is on animal suffering, decisions like beef versus tofu, or even much larger dietary decisions, seem small in comparison.
“Most informed people agree that beef and dairy cows live the best life of all factory farmed animals, more so than pigs, and much much more so than chickens. ”
I just wanted to note that I’m referring to 100% pasture fed lamb/beef. I think it’s very unlikely that it’s ethically permissable to eat factory farmed lamb/beef, even if it’s less bad than eating chickens, etc. I’d also caution against eating dairy since calves and mothers show signs of sadness when separated, although each dairy cow produces a lot of dairy (as you noted).
“I think you meant prevents painful deaths?”
Sorry, I probably could’ve worded this better, but my original wording was what I meant. My understanding is that crop cultivation for grains and beans causes painful wild animal deaths, but grass-fed cows/lamb do not eat crops and therefore, as far as I’m aware, do not cause wild animal deaths.
I certainly agree with your conclusion that not eating factory farmed chicken, pork, and eggs (and probably also fish) is the most important step! But I’d still like to do the very best with my own consumption.
Everything you said is fair and valid and seems right to me. Thank you for your thoughtful choices and reasoning.
Edit: I forgot you said entirely pasture/grass fed beef, so this waives the thoughts below.
A quibble:
Sorry, I probably could’ve worded this better, but my original wording was what I meant. My understanding is that crop cultivation for grains and beans causes painful wild animal deaths, but grass-fed cows/lamb do not eat crops and therefore, as far as I’m aware, do not cause wild animal deaths.
It seems that beef and dairy cows both use feed, not just grass. Because eating dairy/beef requires more calories of feed (trophic levels), it is possible the amount of land needed for beef might be large compared to land needed for soy.
Grass crops are a use of land that might have ambiguous effects on animal suffering.
I don’t know about either of 1) or 2) above.
I guess I am saying it is either good to be uncertain, or else get a good canonical source.
Hi everyone!
I was wondering if anyone had an opinion on whether it is more ethical to eat 100% grass-fed beef/lamb from trusted suppliers in Australia (i.e. CCTV in slaughter houses and minimal transport) or more tofu/beans?
The pros of tofu/beans are clearly that it does not require taking the life from a cow or lamb who wants to live (although note that it takes lots of meals to cause the death of one cow), and also that it dramatically reduces carbon emissions.
The pros of instead eating 100% grass-fed beef/lamb are that it may help me avoid causing wild animal suffering, since crop cultivation causes potentially painful animal deaths. Although, it is worth noting that these animals may counterfactually die painful deaths in the wild anyway, and eating crops could also reduce wild animal populations who may have net negative lives. Eating beef/lamb once or twice a week would make it somewhat easier to stay healthy and potentially be more productive, and would make my parents less concerned about my health.
I am assuming that cows/lamb live a net neutral life, which seems to be a reasonable assumption for trusted suppliers. In terms of monetary cost, I think the cost of buying vitamin supplements is approximately cancelled out by the cost of buying meat. Also, I wouldn’t eat any meat out of the house, so you can assume that the impact of my eating on my friends is irrelevant.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
Lucas
Update—I just came across this article, which suggests that harvesting/pasture deaths are probably higher for beef than plants anyway, so it seems a pretty clear decision that being vegan is best in expectation!
From a consequentialist perspective, I think what matters more is how these options affect your psychology and epistemics (in particular, whether doing this will increase or decrease your speciesist bias, and whether doing this makes you uncomfortable), instead of the amount of suffering they directly produce or reduce. After all, your major impact on the world is from your words and actions, not what you eat.
That being said, I think non-consequentialist views deserve some considerations too, if only due to moral uncertainty. I’m less certain about what are their implications though, especially when taking into account things like WAS.
A few minor notes to your points:
At least where I live, vitamin supplements can be super cheap if you go for the pharmaceutical products instead of those health products wrapped up in fancy packages. I’m taking 5 kinds of supplements simultaneously, and in total they cost me no more than (the RMB equivalent of) several dollars per month.
It might be hard to hide that from your friends if you are eating meat when being alone. All the time people mindlessly say things they aren’t supposed to say. Also when your friends ask you about your eating habit you’ll have to lie, which might be a bad thing even for consequentialists.
Thanks, these are really interesting and useful thoughts!
Might be irrelevant, but have you considered moving to the US for the increased salary?
Thanks for the suggestion, but I’m currently in college, so it’s impossible for me to move :)
This is a really thoughtful and useful question.
Most informed people agree that beef and dairy cows live the best life of all factory farmed animals, more so than pigs, and much much more so than chickens.
Further, as you point out, beef and dairy cows produce much more food per animal (or suffering weighted days alive).
A calculator here can help make make the above thoughts more concrete, maybe you have seen it.
I think you meant prevents painful deaths?
With this change, I don’t know, but this seems plausible. (I think amount of suffering depends on the land use and pesticides, but I don’t know if the scientific understanding is settled, and this subtopic may be distracting.)
I think you have a great question.
Note that extreme suffering in factory farming probably comes from very specific issues, concentrated in a few types of animals (caged hens suffering to death by the millions and other graphic situations).
This means that, if the assumptions in this discussion are true, and our concern is on animal suffering, decisions like beef versus tofu, or even much larger dietary decisions, seem small in comparison.
Thanks Charles for your thoughtful response.
I just wanted to note that I’m referring to 100% pasture fed lamb/beef. I think it’s very unlikely that it’s ethically permissable to eat factory farmed lamb/beef, even if it’s less bad than eating chickens, etc. I’d also caution against eating dairy since calves and mothers show signs of sadness when separated, although each dairy cow produces a lot of dairy (as you noted).
Sorry, I probably could’ve worded this better, but my original wording was what I meant. My understanding is that crop cultivation for grains and beans causes painful wild animal deaths, but grass-fed cows/lamb do not eat crops and therefore, as far as I’m aware, do not cause wild animal deaths.
I certainly agree with your conclusion that not eating factory farmed chicken, pork, and eggs (and probably also fish) is the most important step! But I’d still like to do the very best with my own consumption.
Everything you said is fair and valid and seems right to me. Thank you for your thoughtful choices and reasoning.
Edit: I forgot you said entirely pasture/grass fed beef, so this waives the thoughts below.
A quibble:It seems that beef and dairy cows both use feed, not just grass. Because eating dairy/beef requires more calories of feed (trophic levels), it is possible the amount of land needed for beef might be large compared to land needed for soy.Grass crops are a use of land that might have ambiguous effects on animal suffering.I don’t know about either of 1) or 2) above.I guess I am saying it is either good to be uncertain, or else get a good canonical source.