Perhaps you could further describe
1) Why you think that offsetting meat consumption is different from offsetting killing a person
2) How meat consumption can “affect the extent to which one is able to be ethically productive”
For me, these kinds of discussions suggest that most self-declared consequentialists are not consequentialists, but deontologists using consequentalist decision making in certain aspects of their lives. I think acknowledging this fact would be a step towards greater intellectual honesty.
“Perhaps you could further describe 1) Why you think that offsetting meat consumption is different from offsetting killing a person”
Because meat consumption has the potential to save money and/or time for the average person, which murder doesn’t.
“2) How meat consumption can “affect the extent to which one is able to be ethically productive”
As the OP, Katja Grace, and others have pointed out, if being vegetarian incurs any social or monetary costs in the range of under, say, $100 a year, then it’s far more inefficient than donations simply to animal charities, while human poverty charities and existential risk charities could do even better. Personally, I save $100 a month by living in an apartment without a kitchen where I can’t cook meat substitutes, I save an additional $10 or so per week on groceries (based on comparison between my expenses when I was living vegetarian and now), I spend less of my time cooking, and my diet is more complete.
Perhaps you could further describe 1) Why you think that offsetting meat consumption is different from offsetting killing a person 2) How meat consumption can “affect the extent to which one is able to be ethically productive”
For me, these kinds of discussions suggest that most self-declared consequentialists are not consequentialists, but deontologists using consequentalist decision making in certain aspects of their lives. I think acknowledging this fact would be a step towards greater intellectual honesty.
Many EAs don’t self-declare as consequentialists. And even if you think consequentialism is the best guess moral theory, due to moral uncertainty, you should still care about what other perspectives might say. https://80000hours.org/2012/01/practical-ethics-given-moral-uncertainty/
“Perhaps you could further describe 1) Why you think that offsetting meat consumption is different from offsetting killing a person”
Because meat consumption has the potential to save money and/or time for the average person, which murder doesn’t.
“2) How meat consumption can “affect the extent to which one is able to be ethically productive”
As the OP, Katja Grace, and others have pointed out, if being vegetarian incurs any social or monetary costs in the range of under, say, $100 a year, then it’s far more inefficient than donations simply to animal charities, while human poverty charities and existential risk charities could do even better. Personally, I save $100 a month by living in an apartment without a kitchen where I can’t cook meat substitutes, I save an additional $10 or so per week on groceries (based on comparison between my expenses when I was living vegetarian and now), I spend less of my time cooking, and my diet is more complete.
Well, too bad, because I am a consequentialist. <<
To clarify, this remark was not directed towards you, but referred to others further up in the thread who argued against moral offsetting.
Oh, right. Yes that’s true, sorry for misunderstanding.