i agree with some other comments, just sharing some thoughts that haven’t been posted here yet.
i think that, purely consequentially, you can say that you personally do more good by continuing to purchase products derived from animal suffering (or continuing to do any other deontologically bad thing to others), because doing so makes you happier, or is more convenient, and this lets you be more effective—and that might really be true. to that extent, this isn’t even an objection.
that said, when i consider situations involving the use of animal products, i tend to imagine what i would prefer, and how i would feel—if i were still me, with my current values and mind—but the roles were swapped; if it was me in a factory farm, and some alien altruist in the equivelant position to the one i am in, in an alien civilization similar to humans’. i ask myself, would i be okay with them doing <whatever> with <thing derived from my suffering>?
and sometimes the answer is yes. if they’re cold at night and they’re in a situation where the only blanket is made of material derived from my suffering (analogy to wool), and they’re feeling conflicted, then okay, they can use it. they’re on my side.
if the request was, “can i eat your flesh because i think i derive personal enjoyment from it and i think that lets me be more effective, given i don’t feel particularly disturbed by this situation?” then i would (metaphorically) conclude that i am in hell. that this is the altruist angel who is supposedly going to save us. that this is their moral character.[1]
again, this is not an objection per se—it’s separate from whether the consequential argument is true, and if it is i guess i prefer you to follow it—it’s just some related thoughts about the moral status of the world in which it is true. i am not saying you are wrong, but that if you are not wrong it is wrong for the world to be this way.
i agree with some other comments, just sharing some thoughts that haven’t been posted here yet.
i think that, purely consequentially, you can say that you personally do more good by continuing to purchase products derived from animal suffering (or continuing to do any other deontologically bad thing to others), because doing so makes you happier, or is more convenient, and this lets you be more effective—and that might really be true. to that extent, this isn’t even an objection.
that said, when i consider situations involving the use of animal products, i tend to imagine what i would prefer, and how i would feel—if i were still me, with my current values and mind—but the roles were swapped; if it was me in a factory farm, and some alien altruist in the equivelant position to the one i am in, in an alien civilization similar to humans’. i ask myself, would i be okay with them doing <whatever> with <thing derived from my suffering>?
and sometimes the answer is yes. if they’re cold at night and they’re in a situation where the only blanket is made of material derived from my suffering (analogy to wool), and they’re feeling conflicted, then okay, they can use it. they’re on my side.
if the request was, “can i eat your flesh because i think i derive personal enjoyment from it and i think that lets me be more effective, given i don’t feel particularly disturbed by this situation?” then i would (metaphorically) conclude that i am in hell. that this is the altruist angel who is supposedly going to save us. that this is their moral character.[1]
again, this is not an objection per se—it’s separate from whether the consequential argument is true, and if it is i guess i prefer you to follow it—it’s just some related thoughts about the moral status of the world in which it is true. i am not saying you are wrong, but that if you are not wrong it is wrong for the world to be this way.
to be clear, i’m not saying you are evil and i don’t want you to feel bad from reading this.