Executive summary: The author explores whether there are deontological constraints that make animal product consumption “non-negotiably wrong” such that it is impermissible to ask people to merely reduce rather than eliminate their consumption, but does not reach a firm conclusion.
Key points:
Some animal advocates argue animal product consumption is “non-negotiably wrong” and that asking for reduction is impermissible, akin to asking for less murder or child abuse.
The author examines six candidate deontological constraints that could make animal product consumption non-negotiably wrong, such as it being produced by rights violations or stealing from animals.
For most candidate constraints, the author argues they either do not apply or are not in fact treated as non-negotiable in analogous human cases like slavery.
Respecting animals’ self-ownership of their bodies and products is the most plausible constraint, but may still be outweighed by preventing greater harms to animals.
The author expresses uncertainty and does not draw firm conclusions, but suggests common arguments for the non-negotiability of veganism face challenges.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, andcontact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: The author explores whether there are deontological constraints that make animal product consumption “non-negotiably wrong” such that it is impermissible to ask people to merely reduce rather than eliminate their consumption, but does not reach a firm conclusion.
Key points:
Some animal advocates argue animal product consumption is “non-negotiably wrong” and that asking for reduction is impermissible, akin to asking for less murder or child abuse.
The author examines six candidate deontological constraints that could make animal product consumption non-negotiably wrong, such as it being produced by rights violations or stealing from animals.
For most candidate constraints, the author argues they either do not apply or are not in fact treated as non-negotiable in analogous human cases like slavery.
Respecting animals’ self-ownership of their bodies and products is the most plausible constraint, but may still be outweighed by preventing greater harms to animals.
The author expresses uncertainty and does not draw firm conclusions, but suggests common arguments for the non-negotiability of veganism face challenges.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.