Yeah, it is interesting. He actually begins chapter 4 (āLiving Without Speciesismā) with a section on āEffective Altruism for Animalsā which talks more about protests, donations, and careers. But then goes on (in the subsequent, āEating Ethicallyā, section):
All of the actions just mentioned are important things to do, but there is one more step we can take that underpins, makes consistent, and gives meaning to all our other activities on behalf of animals: We can take responsibility for our own lives, and make them as free of cruelty as we can. We can, as far as is reasonable and practical in our individual circumstances, stop buying and consuming meat and other animal products.
Which does sound very deontological! (Maybe partly strategic, if more people are likely to be willing to change their diet as a first step? But I also get the sense that he just thinks itās deeply unreasonable for many of us to eat [factory-farmed] meat. As an akratic omnivore myself, I kinda feel like heāsā¦ not wrong there.)
To be clear, I think veganism is good and worth advocating for, but I agree with you that Iād kind of expect the other (more?) āimportant things to doā to get comparatively more attention/āpriority, from a utilitarian perspective.
Has Singer ever made a āstrategic utilitarianā case that going vegan provides a signal to others that you take the issue of animal suffering so seriously that you will make major changes to your life, and that this is a form of witness (akin to Christian religious witness) that both exposes others to and confronts them with that same issue in order to encourage them to take it seriously too? On a personal level that seems like a good strategy given our limited leverage as individuals on the industry, inasmuch as you are living according to your principles as well as having a broader impact by spreading those principles, and can also continue to campaign more directly against the industry.
Yes agree that there is an essentially consequentialist case to offer solutions that will resonate more with non-consequentialists, but surprising to have that degree of emphasis on non-consequentialist solutions
Yeah, it is interesting. He actually begins chapter 4 (āLiving Without Speciesismā) with a section on āEffective Altruism for Animalsā which talks more about protests, donations, and careers. But then goes on (in the subsequent, āEating Ethicallyā, section):
Which does sound very deontological! (Maybe partly strategic, if more people are likely to be willing to change their diet as a first step? But I also get the sense that he just thinks itās deeply unreasonable for many of us to eat [factory-farmed] meat. As an akratic omnivore myself, I kinda feel like heāsā¦ not wrong there.)
To be clear, I think veganism is good and worth advocating for, but I agree with you that Iād kind of expect the other (more?) āimportant things to doā to get comparatively more attention/āpriority, from a utilitarian perspective.
Has Singer ever made a āstrategic utilitarianā case that going vegan provides a signal to others that you take the issue of animal suffering so seriously that you will make major changes to your life, and that this is a form of witness (akin to Christian religious witness) that both exposes others to and confronts them with that same issue in order to encourage them to take it seriously too? On a personal level that seems like a good strategy given our limited leverage as individuals on the industry, inasmuch as you are living according to your principles as well as having a broader impact by spreading those principles, and can also continue to campaign more directly against the industry.
Yes agree that there is an essentially consequentialist case to offer solutions that will resonate more with non-consequentialists, but surprising to have that degree of emphasis on non-consequentialist solutions