I think the stronger case for being veg*n is that one of our goals is to make other people care more about all other beings. Starting conversations about how farm animals shouldn’t be treated cruelly is one of the most frequent opportunities to broach that issue, both with aspiring effective altruists, and the general public.
The welfare of animals is one of the cases where mainstream morality is most misguided. Being veg*n allows you to discuss important moral issues almost every time you eat with other people. I find this often leads onto other issues as well, like effective charity. If you are good at having these conversations, it could be well worth the inconvenience.
I imagine that you’re quite good at tying many conversations back to issues like effective charity. Do you think that starting conversations about veg*nism beats your base-rate, or is it a trade-off for the benefits of discussing the welfare of animals, and you’re just explaining that the opportunity cost is lower than we might think?
Hey Owen, it’s more a good natural starting point for conversations about how to improve the world that come up because you’re eating. I don’t think it takes time away from talking about effective charity—rather it means you’re less likely to talk about neither.
This seems like an argument for avoiding meat when dining in company, but not necessarily an argument for avoiding meat in general. Eating meat at home doesn’t prevent other people from asking why you’re not eating meat. True, it would be dishonest to claim to be a vegetarian if you ate meat privately, but it seems one could follow this strategy and yet not actually claim to be vegetarian. I suppose this depends somewhat on which conversational gambits one uses.
It’s much more compelling by comparison, especially when backed up with the fact that the person at issue actually does care about all other beings, including animals (even if s/he doesn’t believe veganism is the most effective possible way of reducing suffering).
Let’s keep the standards of conversation up, please. It’s straight-up false to say that Katja completely ignored this. She says:
There are many common reasons you might not be willing to eat meat, given these calculations, e.g.:
You think convincing enough others to be vegetarians is the most cost-effective way to make the world better, and being a vegetarian is a great way to have heaps of conversations about vegetarianism, which you believe makes people feel better about vegetarians overall, to the extent that they are frequently compelled to become vegetarians.
‘For signaling’ is another common explanation I have heard, which I think is meant to be similar to the above, though I’m not actually sure of the details.
She is setting the issue largely aside. I agree with your implied point that this means that the conclusion is not quite supported by the argument. The conclusion that is supported is that being vegetarian for the sake of the animal suffering averted from lower meat consumption doesn’t look very effective.
This seems a useful point to understand. If our aim is communication impact, it’s not obvious that simply cutting out meat consumption is the most effective way to do that (I could perhaps be convinced but right now I’d guess not). We might have more effective actions available at the group level and/or the individual consumption level. For instance, perhaps eating meat but only when you are assured that it comes from a high-quality life lets you have more pointed conversations than veg*nism (which people know how to pigeon-hole).
I think the stronger case for being veg*n is that one of our goals is to make other people care more about all other beings. Starting conversations about how farm animals shouldn’t be treated cruelly is one of the most frequent opportunities to broach that issue, both with aspiring effective altruists, and the general public.
The welfare of animals is one of the cases where mainstream morality is most misguided. Being veg*n allows you to discuss important moral issues almost every time you eat with other people. I find this often leads onto other issues as well, like effective charity. If you are good at having these conversations, it could be well worth the inconvenience.
I imagine that you’re quite good at tying many conversations back to issues like effective charity. Do you think that starting conversations about veg*nism beats your base-rate, or is it a trade-off for the benefits of discussing the welfare of animals, and you’re just explaining that the opportunity cost is lower than we might think?
Hey Owen, it’s more a good natural starting point for conversations about how to improve the world that come up because you’re eating. I don’t think it takes time away from talking about effective charity—rather it means you’re less likely to talk about neither.
This seems like an argument for avoiding meat when dining in company, but not necessarily an argument for avoiding meat in general. Eating meat at home doesn’t prevent other people from asking why you’re not eating meat. True, it would be dishonest to claim to be a vegetarian if you ate meat privately, but it seems one could follow this strategy and yet not actually claim to be vegetarian. I suppose this depends somewhat on which conversational gambits one uses.
Lying to people about what you do is never a sustainable strategy.
And saying ‘I don’t eat meat in front of other people so I can have conversations about animal welfare’ is not that compelling!
Right, which is why I said “one could follow this strategy and yet not actually claim to be vegetarian”.
Yes, you probably shouldn’t say that. But
‘I don’t eat meat so I can have conversations about animal welfare’
is also not that compelling!
It’s much more compelling by comparison, especially when backed up with the fact that the person at issue actually does care about all other beings, including animals (even if s/he doesn’t believe veganism is the most effective possible way of reducing suffering).
_
Let’s keep the standards of conversation up, please. It’s straight-up false to say that Katja completely ignored this. She says:
She is setting the issue largely aside. I agree with your implied point that this means that the conclusion is not quite supported by the argument. The conclusion that is supported is that being vegetarian for the sake of the animal suffering averted from lower meat consumption doesn’t look very effective.
This seems a useful point to understand. If our aim is communication impact, it’s not obvious that simply cutting out meat consumption is the most effective way to do that (I could perhaps be convinced but right now I’d guess not). We might have more effective actions available at the group level and/or the individual consumption level. For instance, perhaps eating meat but only when you are assured that it comes from a high-quality life lets you have more pointed conversations than veg*nism (which people know how to pigeon-hole).