I agree that many people say (1), but when you dig into it it seems clear that people incur costs that would be better spent on donations, and so I donât think itâs good reasoning.
Do you mean financial costs, or all net costs together, including potentially through time, motivation, energy, cognition? I think itâs reasonably likely that for many people, there are ~no real net (opportunity) costs, or that itâs actually net good (but if net good in those ways, then that would probably be a better reason than 1). Putting my thoughts in a footnote, because theyâre long and might miss what you have in mind.[1]
I also think (4) is probably the most common reason, and I do think probably captures something important, but it seems like a bad inference that âsomeone is in it to prevent harmâ if (4) is their reason for being vegetarian or vegan.
Ya, that seems fair. If they had the option to just stop thinking and feeling bad about it and chose that over going veg, which is what my framing suggests they would do, then it seems the motivation is to feel better and get more time, not avoid harming animals through their diets. This would be like seeing someone in trouble, like a homeless person, and avoiding them to avoid thinking and feeling bad about them. This can be either selfish or instrumentally other-regarding, given opportunity costs.
If they thought (or felt!) the right response to the feelings is to just go veg and not to just stop thinking and feeling bad about it, then I would say they are in it to prevent harm, just guided by their feelings. And their feelings might not be very scope-sensitive, even if they make donation and career decisions in scope-sensitive ways. I think this is kind of what virtue ethics is about. Also potentially related: âDo the math, then burn the math and go with your gutâ.
Financial/âdonations: Itâs not clear to me that my diet is more expensive than if I were omnivorous. Some things Iâve substituted for animal products are cheaper and others are more expensive. I havenât carefully worked through this, though. Itâs also not clear that if it were more expensive, that I would donate more, because of how I decide how much to donate, which is based on my income and a vague sense of my costs of living, which probably wonât pick up differences due to diet (but maybe it does in expectation, and maybe it means donating less later, because Iâll have less money to donate later). If I budgeted more precisely, that would have time costs (which might not come out of work, anyway, though). And if I werenât vegan, maybe Iâd be less motivated to donate as much (although this is more like âself-signalingâ, or altruism sharpens altruism).
Time: I doubt most veg*ns would work more hours (allowing more impactful work or more donations) if they werenât managing or accommodating their veg*n diet. Time spent on the diet is small and probably doesnât really come out of work hours. But this can depend on their particular circumstances. Maybe someone gets their blood tested more frequently because of their diet, and this specifically comes out of their work hours.
Time costs might also be incurred by others, like event or working space organizers (like you, as I think youâve brought up before), and veg*ns may not appreciate this, or might (Iâd guess correctly) think one more vegan makes ~no difference. Maybe it would be better if everyone agreed to eat whatever at events, and the animal products were offset by animal charity donations, or that time was just given back to organizers to work on other important things without any specific donation offset.
Effects on energy and cognition will vary by person. I think there are risks here people should make some effort to minimize (e.g. blood testing, supplements). That effort can come out of their time and donations, but thatâs already accounted for above. There might be some remaining (expected) costs even after this. Or there could be net benefits, in case they end up with an overall healthier diet this way (and might not be motivated to do so except to go veg; itâs easier to avoid unhealthy foods you also object to morally).
Do you mean financial costs, or all net costs together, including potentially through time, motivation, energy, cognition?
I meant net costs all together, tough I agree that if you take into account motivation ânet costsâ becomes a kind of tricky concept, and many people can find it motivating, and that is important to think about, but also really doesnât fit nicely into a harm-reducing framework.
Financial/âdonations: Itâs not clear to me that my diet is more expensive than if I were omnivorous. Some things Iâve substituted for animal products are cheaper and others are more expensive.
I mean, being an onmivore would allow you to choose between more options. Generally having more options very rarely hurts you.
many people can find it motivating, and that is important to think about, but also really doesnât fit nicely into a harm-reducing framework.
Ya, I guess the value towards harm reduction would be more indirect/âinstrumental in this case.
I mean, being an onmivore would allow you to choose between more options. Generally having more options very rarely hurts you.
I think this is true of idealized rational agents with fixed preferences, but Iâm much less sure about actual people, who are motivated in ways they wouldnât endorse upon reflection and who arenât acting optimally impartially even if they think it would be better on reflection if they did.
By going veg, you eliminate or more easily resist the motivation to eat more expensive animal products that could have net impartial opportunity costs. Maybe skipping (expensive) meats hurts you in the moment (because you want meat), but it saves you money to donate to things you think matter more. Youâd be less likely to correctly â by reflection on your impartial preferences â skip the meat and save the money if you werenât veg.
And some people are not even really open to (cheaper) plant-based options like beans and tofu, and that goes away going veg. That was the case for me. My attitude before going veg would have been irrational from an impartial perspective, just considering the $ costs that could be donated instead.
Of course, some people will endorse being inherently partial to themselves upon reflection, so eating animal products might seem fine to them even at greater cost. But the people inclined to cut out animal products by comparing their personal costs to the harms to animals probably wouldnât end up endorsing their selfish motivation to eat animal products over the harms to animals.
The other side is that a veg*n is more motivated to eat the more expensive plant-based substitutes and go to vegan restaurants, which (in my experience) tend to be more expensive.
Iâm not inclined to judge how things will shake out based on idealized models of agents. I really donât know either way, and it will depend on the person. Cheap veg diets seem cheaper than cheap omni diets, but if people are eating enough plant-based meats, their food costs would probably increase.
Here are prices in Canadian $/âkg of protein, for the versions of foods that seemed cheapest per kg of protein from Walmart Canada and Amazon Canada.
And then extra supplements for veg EAs.
For restaurants, as long as you avoid expensive plant-based substitutes and vegan-specific restaurants, I think veg options are usually cheaper. Of course, a veg EA will be tempted by these sometimes, too!
To be clear, I donât think itâs that important to minimize the cost of your diet. Things like rent, vehicle, travel, and how often you eat out (when it doesnât help you do more work) are probably more important if you want to save money.
Do you mean financial costs, or all net costs together, including potentially through time, motivation, energy, cognition? I think itâs reasonably likely that for many people, there are ~no real net (opportunity) costs, or that itâs actually net good (but if net good in those ways, then that would probably be a better reason than 1). Putting my thoughts in a footnote, because theyâre long and might miss what you have in mind.[1]
Ya, that seems fair. If they had the option to just stop thinking and feeling bad about it and chose that over going veg, which is what my framing suggests they would do, then it seems the motivation is to feel better and get more time, not avoid harming animals through their diets. This would be like seeing someone in trouble, like a homeless person, and avoiding them to avoid thinking and feeling bad about them. This can be either selfish or instrumentally other-regarding, given opportunity costs.
If they thought (or felt!) the right response to the feelings is to just go veg and not to just stop thinking and feeling bad about it, then I would say they are in it to prevent harm, just guided by their feelings. And their feelings might not be very scope-sensitive, even if they make donation and career decisions in scope-sensitive ways. I think this is kind of what virtue ethics is about. Also potentially related: âDo the math, then burn the math and go with your gutâ.
Financial/âdonations: Itâs not clear to me that my diet is more expensive than if I were omnivorous. Some things Iâve substituted for animal products are cheaper and others are more expensive. I havenât carefully worked through this, though. Itâs also not clear that if it were more expensive, that I would donate more, because of how I decide how much to donate, which is based on my income and a vague sense of my costs of living, which probably wonât pick up differences due to diet (but maybe it does in expectation, and maybe it means donating less later, because Iâll have less money to donate later). If I budgeted more precisely, that would have time costs (which might not come out of work, anyway, though). And if I werenât vegan, maybe Iâd be less motivated to donate as much (although this is more like âself-signalingâ, or altruism sharpens altruism).
Time: I doubt most veg*ns would work more hours (allowing more impactful work or more donations) if they werenât managing or accommodating their veg*n diet. Time spent on the diet is small and probably doesnât really come out of work hours. But this can depend on their particular circumstances. Maybe someone gets their blood tested more frequently because of their diet, and this specifically comes out of their work hours.
Time costs might also be incurred by others, like event or working space organizers (like you, as I think youâve brought up before), and veg*ns may not appreciate this, or might (Iâd guess correctly) think one more vegan makes ~no difference. Maybe it would be better if everyone agreed to eat whatever at events, and the animal products were offset by animal charity donations, or that time was just given back to organizers to work on other important things without any specific donation offset.
Effects on energy and cognition will vary by person. I think there are risks here people should make some effort to minimize (e.g. blood testing, supplements). That effort can come out of their time and donations, but thatâs already accounted for above. There might be some remaining (expected) costs even after this. Or there could be net benefits, in case they end up with an overall healthier diet this way (and might not be motivated to do so except to go veg; itâs easier to avoid unhealthy foods you also object to morally).
I meant net costs all together, tough I agree that if you take into account motivation ânet costsâ becomes a kind of tricky concept, and many people can find it motivating, and that is important to think about, but also really doesnât fit nicely into a harm-reducing framework.
I mean, being an onmivore would allow you to choose between more options. Generally having more options very rarely hurts you.
Overall I like your comment.
Ya, I guess the value towards harm reduction would be more indirect/âinstrumental in this case.
I think this is true of idealized rational agents with fixed preferences, but Iâm much less sure about actual people, who are motivated in ways they wouldnât endorse upon reflection and who arenât acting optimally impartially even if they think it would be better on reflection if they did.
By going veg, you eliminate or more easily resist the motivation to eat more expensive animal products that could have net impartial opportunity costs. Maybe skipping (expensive) meats hurts you in the moment (because you want meat), but it saves you money to donate to things you think matter more. Youâd be less likely to correctly â by reflection on your impartial preferences â skip the meat and save the money if you werenât veg.
And some people are not even really open to (cheaper) plant-based options like beans and tofu, and that goes away going veg. That was the case for me. My attitude before going veg would have been irrational from an impartial perspective, just considering the $ costs that could be donated instead.
Of course, some people will endorse being inherently partial to themselves upon reflection, so eating animal products might seem fine to them even at greater cost. But the people inclined to cut out animal products by comparing their personal costs to the harms to animals probably wouldnât end up endorsing their selfish motivation to eat animal products over the harms to animals.
The other side is that a veg*n is more motivated to eat the more expensive plant-based substitutes and go to vegan restaurants, which (in my experience) tend to be more expensive.
Iâm not inclined to judge how things will shake out based on idealized models of agents. I really donât know either way, and it will depend on the person. Cheap veg diets seem cheaper than cheap omni diets, but if people are eating enough plant-based meats, their food costs would probably increase.
Here are prices in Canadian $/âkg of protein, for the versions of foods that seemed cheapest per kg of protein from Walmart Canada and Amazon Canada.
And then extra supplements for veg EAs.
For restaurants, as long as you avoid expensive plant-based substitutes and vegan-specific restaurants, I think veg options are usually cheaper. Of course, a veg EA will be tempted by these sometimes, too!
To be clear, I donât think itâs that important to minimize the cost of your diet. Things like rent, vehicle, travel, and how often you eat out (when it doesnât help you do more work) are probably more important if you want to save money.