The inconvenience I had in mind is not in your list, and comprises things in the area of, âPrefer to keep the diet Iâm already accustomed toâ, âPrefer omnivorous diets on taste etc. grounds to vegan onesâ, and so on. I was thinking of an EA who is omnivorous and feels little/âno compunction about eating meat (either because they arenât âon boardâ with the moral motivation for animal causes in general, or doesnât find the arguments for veganism persuasive in particular). I think switching to a vegan diet isnât best described as a minor inconvenience for people like these.
But to be clear, this doesnât entail any moral obligation whatsoever on the hotel to serve meatâitâs not like they are forcing omnivorous guests to be vegan, but just not cooking them free (non-vegan) food. If a vegan offers me to stay at their house a) for free, b) offers vegan food for free too, c) welcomes me to, if Iâm not a fan of vegan food, get my own food to cook at their house whenever I likeâwhich seems basically the counterfactual scenario if I wasnât staying with them in the first place, and d) explains all of this before I come, theyâve been supererogatory in accommodating me, and it would be absurd for me to say theyâve fallen short in not serving me free omnivorous food which they morally object to.
Yet insofar as âfree foodâ is a selling point of the hotel, âfree vegan foodâ may not be so enticing to omnivorous guests. Obviously the offer is still generous by itself, leave alone combined with free accommodation, but one could imagine it making a difference on the margin to omnivores (especially if they are cost-sensitive).
Thus thereâs a trade-off in between these people and vegans who would be put off if the hotel served meat itself (even if vegan options were also provided). Itâs plausible to me the best option to pick here (leave alone any other considerations) is the more âvegan-friendlyâ policy. But this isnât because the trade-off is in fact illusory because the âvegan-friendlyâ policy is has minimal/âminor costs to omnivores after all.
[Empirically though, this doesnât seem to amount to all that much given (I understand) the hotel hasnât been struggling for guests.]
The inconvenience I had in mind is not in your list, and comprises things in the area of, âPrefer to keep the diet Iâm already accustomed toâ, âPrefer omnivorous diets on taste etc. grounds to vegan onesâ, and so on. I was thinking of an EA who is omnivorous and feels little/âno compunction about eating meat (either because they arenât âon boardâ with the moral motivation for animal causes in general, or doesnât find the arguments for veganism persuasive in particular). I think switching to a vegan diet isnât best described as a minor inconvenience for people like these.
But to be clear, this doesnât entail any moral obligation whatsoever on the hotel to serve meatâitâs not like they are forcing omnivorous guests to be vegan, but just not cooking them free (non-vegan) food. If a vegan offers me to stay at their house a) for free, b) offers vegan food for free too, c) welcomes me to, if Iâm not a fan of vegan food, get my own food to cook at their house whenever I likeâwhich seems basically the counterfactual scenario if I wasnât staying with them in the first place, and d) explains all of this before I come, theyâve been supererogatory in accommodating me, and it would be absurd for me to say theyâve fallen short in not serving me free omnivorous food which they morally object to.
Yet insofar as âfree foodâ is a selling point of the hotel, âfree vegan foodâ may not be so enticing to omnivorous guests. Obviously the offer is still generous by itself, leave alone combined with free accommodation, but one could imagine it making a difference on the margin to omnivores (especially if they are cost-sensitive).
Thus thereâs a trade-off in between these people and vegans who would be put off if the hotel served meat itself (even if vegan options were also provided). Itâs plausible to me the best option to pick here (leave alone any other considerations) is the more âvegan-friendlyâ policy. But this isnât because the trade-off is in fact illusory because the âvegan-friendlyâ policy is has minimal/âminor costs to omnivores after all.
[Empirically though, this doesnât seem to amount to all that much given (I understand) the hotel hasnât been struggling for guests.]