Good argument. It might not work if one maintains an act-omission distinction regarding harms to the environment. For example, imagine that
value to farm animals of veg outreach = 1 util/$
value to wild animals of veg outreach = −2 util/$ (due to reducing environmental impact).
If this were the case, we shouldn’t do veg outreach. It would seem that we should try to increase environmental impact by promoting beef consumption, but maybe our act-omission distinction prevents us from wanting to do that. It could also be difficult to explain why one is promoting beef production or get other people concerned for animal welfare on board.
(This example is just for illustration. In reality, if I could push a button to increase vegetarianism in the world, I probably would.)
Good argument. It might not work if one maintains an act-omission distinction regarding harms to the environment. For example, imagine that
value to farm animals of veg outreach = 1 util/$
value to wild animals of veg outreach = −2 util/$ (due to reducing environmental impact).
If this were the case, we shouldn’t do veg outreach. It would seem that we should try to increase environmental impact by promoting beef consumption, but maybe our act-omission distinction prevents us from wanting to do that. It could also be difficult to explain why one is promoting beef production or get other people concerned for animal welfare on board.
(This example is just for illustration. In reality, if I could push a button to increase vegetarianism in the world, I probably would.)