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.” While this may sound compelling on the surface, I believe it fails for several reasons—both ethically and practically.
First-Order Utilitarianism Can Justify Harm
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.”
Second-Order Effects: Ethics Become a Privilege for the Wealthy
A system where individuals can buy their way out of ethical harm creates an inequitable moral landscape:
The Wealthy: Can offset harm without personal sacrifice, effectively “paying to win” the ethical game.
The Poor: Are left to shoulder a disproportionate moral burden. If they can’t afford to offset their consumption, they are unfairly judged as less ethical.
This framework commodifies morality, allowing wealth to shield individuals from accountability while punishing those without means. Ethics should not be reduced to a transactional system where only those with resources can be “good people.”
Personal Sacrifice and Offsetting Aren’t Mutually Exclusive
Another flaw in this argument is the assumption that personal sacrifices and wealth-based offsetting are mutually exclusive. They’re not. You can—and should—strive to minimise harm to the greatest degree you can while simultaneously leveraging your resources to maximise positive impact.
Veganisms Signalling Effect: The Power of Visible Ethical Action
Veganism also carries a unique advantage that’s often overlooked: its signalling power. It’s perceived by society as requiring a significant sacrifice—effort, consistency, and energy—when, in reality, it’s far simpler than people think.
Correcting the record is important, but this perception creates a surprising benefit: visible ethical actions inspire others. Seeing someone willingly make personal sacrifices for the sake of morality encourages others to act ethically, too.
Social Influence: This is the same principle behind actions like picking up litter. When people observe you doing something altruistic with low cost but high moral visibility, they’re more likely to engage in altruistic behavior themselves.
Societal Impact: Ethical signaling builds cultural momentum. It normalizes the idea that individuals should take personal responsibility to reduce harm, inspiring others to reflect on their actions.
This alone is a compelling reason to adopt veganism, even beyond the core animal ethics. Ethical actions ripple outward—strengthening communities and fostering a more moral society.
While donating to effective animal charities is a powerful way to reduce harm, it doesn’t absolve us of the responsibility to minimise the harm we personally cause. Ethical behaviour shouldn’t be commodified or reduced to a transaction where the wealthy can “offset” harm while the less privileged carry the moral burden.
By going vegan, we not only act in alignment with our values but also send a powerful signal that we’re willing to make sacrifices for the greater good. This signaling has real, tangible benefits—encouraging others to take action and fostering a culture where morality isn’t about convenience, but about accountability.
Buying your way out of personal ethics
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.” While this may sound compelling on the surface, I believe it fails for several reasons—both ethically and practically.
First-Order Utilitarianism Can Justify Harm
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.”
Second-Order Effects: Ethics Become a Privilege for the Wealthy
A system where individuals can buy their way out of ethical harm creates an inequitable moral landscape:
The Wealthy: Can offset harm without personal sacrifice, effectively “paying to win” the ethical game.
The Poor: Are left to shoulder a disproportionate moral burden. If they can’t afford to offset their consumption, they are unfairly judged as less ethical.
This framework commodifies morality, allowing wealth to shield individuals from accountability while punishing those without means. Ethics should not be reduced to a transactional system where only those with resources can be “good people.”
Personal Sacrifice and Offsetting Aren’t Mutually Exclusive
Another flaw in this argument is the assumption that personal sacrifices and wealth-based offsetting are mutually exclusive. They’re not. You can—and should—strive to minimise harm to the greatest degree you can while simultaneously leveraging your resources to maximise positive impact.
Veganisms Signalling Effect: The Power of Visible Ethical Action
Veganism also carries a unique advantage that’s often overlooked: its signalling power. It’s perceived by society as requiring a significant sacrifice—effort, consistency, and energy—when, in reality, it’s far simpler than people think.
Correcting the record is important, but this perception creates a surprising benefit: visible ethical actions inspire others. Seeing someone willingly make personal sacrifices for the sake of morality encourages others to act ethically, too.
Social Influence: This is the same principle behind actions like picking up litter. When people observe you doing something altruistic with low cost but high moral visibility, they’re more likely to engage in altruistic behavior themselves.
Societal Impact: Ethical signaling builds cultural momentum. It normalizes the idea that individuals should take personal responsibility to reduce harm, inspiring others to reflect on their actions.
This alone is a compelling reason to adopt veganism, even beyond the core animal ethics. Ethical actions ripple outward—strengthening communities and fostering a more moral society.
While donating to effective animal charities is a powerful way to reduce harm, it doesn’t absolve us of the responsibility to minimise the harm we personally cause. Ethical behaviour shouldn’t be commodified or reduced to a transaction where the wealthy can “offset” harm while the less privileged carry the moral burden.
By going vegan, we not only act in alignment with our values but also send a powerful signal that we’re willing to make sacrifices for the greater good. This signaling has real, tangible benefits—encouraging others to take action and fostering a culture where morality isn’t about convenience, but about accountability.