I’ve noticed a recurring argument in EA spaces around veganism: “If I donate enough money to effective animal charities, I’ll save more animals than I would by going vegan. So, I don’t need to personally stop consuming animal products.”
You put this argument in double quotation markets, suggesting it is a verbatim quote—did someone make precisely this argument? The reason I ask is because I think you are presenting something of a strawman, and the typical argument presented—namely that our charity is finite, and both we and animals would prefer donations over abstinence—is much more plausible.
This argument relies on a pure first-order utilitarian outlook, where harm is permissible as long as it’s “offset” by a greater good. Taken to its logical extreme, this reasoning leads to absurd conclusions: “If I donate $10,000 to save two lives, I’m morally justified in taking one life because it’s convenient or enjoyable.”
This seems wrong to me. Typically ‘pure’ utilitarianism isn’t taken to have a concept of ‘permissible’ - you should do the thing that causes the most good. Permissibility and supererogation are weakening of utilitarianism to incorporate other moral intuitions.
FWIW I have personally said something close to “If I donate enough money to effective animal charities, I’ll save more animals than I would by going vegan. So, I don’t need to personally stop consuming animal products.”
And after reading this article, I still stand by that position.
utilitarianism isn’t taken to have a concept of ‘permissible’
Don’t understand this point. OP is comparing giving $10,000 while killing 2 people to doing neither. Or being vegan to not being vegan while giving $$$ to animal welfare. Clearly by “permissible” they mean “higher utility than the alternative”
“permissible” and “higher utility than the alternative” are two very different things. Shooting one person at a bus stop is higher utility than shooting four, but that doesn’t make it permissible, because you should shoot zero people. Pure utilitarianism says you should always do the best thing, and that means higher utility than all alternatives, not just some alternatives.
I don’t believe it to be utilitarian to arbitrarily link two unrelated actions (donating money and, separately, taking a life).
The reason for taking the life would never be because it’s enjoyable or convenient, it would only be if it is in direct service of saving the other lives.
You put this argument in double quotation markets, suggesting it is a verbatim quote—did someone make precisely this argument? The reason I ask is because I think you are presenting something of a strawman, and the typical argument presented—namely that our charity is finite, and both we and animals would prefer donations over abstinence—is much more plausible.
This seems wrong to me. Typically ‘pure’ utilitarianism isn’t taken to have a concept of ‘permissible’ - you should do the thing that causes the most good. Permissibility and supererogation are weakening of utilitarianism to incorporate other moral intuitions.
FWIW I have personally said something close to “If I donate enough money to effective animal charities, I’ll save more animals than I would by going vegan. So, I don’t need to personally stop consuming animal products.”
And after reading this article, I still stand by that position.
Don’t understand this point. OP is comparing giving $10,000 while killing 2 people to doing neither. Or being vegan to not being vegan while giving $$$ to animal welfare. Clearly by “permissible” they mean “higher utility than the alternative”
“permissible” and “higher utility than the alternative” are two very different things. Shooting one person at a bus stop is higher utility than shooting four, but that doesn’t make it permissible, because you should shoot zero people. Pure utilitarianism says you should always do the best thing, and that means higher utility than all alternatives, not just some alternatives.
Yes, agreed.
I don’t believe it to be utilitarian to arbitrarily link two unrelated actions (donating money and, separately, taking a life).
The reason for taking the life would never be because it’s enjoyable or convenient, it would only be if it is in direct service of saving the other lives.