Thanks for writing. I’m with you on the idea of a self-imposed tax—seems like a reasonable idea for those who can do it and certainly the impact of donating can be more impactful than many other actions we can take. However, I don’t know if we can discount the gains that veganism (I’ll use veganism as it’s a lot more straightforward) makes so quickly. I know you’ve said that veganism isn’t bad or stupid, but that it’s not as impactful as other things we could do, so I’m keeping that in mind. I’m only thinking out loud here based on my intuition, so let’s see if this makes sense.
Veganism—as you know—is a philosophy against the exploitation of animals, based on ideas around animal sentience and the moral status of animals. Here are some thought that come to me based on that definition and your argument here:
One vegan meal, instead of a meat-based one, may make little difference compared to donating money, but by choosing a vegan meal someone is participating in a broader social movement and making a statement against animal exploitation. It’s a drop in the bucket, but every bit helps push the movement forward. The more individuals choose vegan options, the stronger and more influential the group gets as a whole which gives us more political leverage.
Veganism doesn’t ask people to do anything extra (like pay more for luxury goods). Instead, it asks people to refrain from doing something they otherwise would have done. This makes it feel different in kind than asking people to donate money, although I’ll admit that this doesn’t seem to make the former any easier unfortunately.
The vegan movement doesn’t only help animals exploited for food, but those in labs, zoos, circuses etc. In this way, contributing towards a more influential vegan movement could have a wider impact than it initially seems when we choose a vegan meal.
Those are just some initial thoughts that make me feel like the first step in your money pump argument (‘I give up one animal product-based meal in exchange for a less filling, vegetarian meal, which results in a slightly higher expected quality of life for some animals’) might be more like ‘I give up one animal product-based meal in exchange for a vegan meal (it surely doesn’t need to be less filling) which contributes to a stronger, more influential movement against animal exploitation’. Perhaps the extent to which this is true depends on the context in which you’re eating.
Thanks for your response! These are thoughtful points.
I’ll need to think more about the marginal impact of being a member of a movement like the vegan one. You raise some good points, and upon reflection, I remember that the vegans in my life have certainly inspired my actions at least a little bit. These are benefits that I am wrong to discount too much.
I think the step in my money pump argument that bothers me the most is choosing to buy a boba over donating to an effective charity, because it doesn’t seem in line with how I make my other decisions. I would really like my preferences to be transitive, as it makes me feel less hypocritical.
2. Veganism doesn’t ask people to do anything extra (like pay more for luxury goods). Instead, it asks people to refrain from doing something they otherwise would have done. This makes it feel different in kind than asking people to donate money, although I’ll admit that this doesn’t seem to make the former any easier unfortunately.
Perhaps the way I think about this is very abstracted away from how real people think about their choices, but I would argue that small charitable donations are less costly to many people than the choice to give up meat. On many restaurant menus, you can find a section that says something along the lines of “add chicken/beef/pork to this for $1.99” or something along those lines. Or maybe a menu will have something like “spaghetti and marinara sauce: $7.99; spaghetti and meatballs: $9.99.” The existence of these items at these prices implies that the value of giving up meat in these circumstances is worth at least $2 to some people (they would rather have the meat than have those $2). So, based on people’s revealed preferences through pricing, I think veganism is probably more costly to people than explicitly spending small amounts of money. Perhaps there is something to be said about the effort of going out of your way to donate, but in my experience, the process is quite painless.
I think you’re right about the reality of how people weigh up giving up meat vs donating. Many people would rather sacrifice a small amount of money than give up meat (as shown in your example). I suppose the best that we can do, in terms of advocacy, is encouraging people to do both or, failing that, one or the other. On paper, it’s possible that donating could look more impactful, but it can be hard to accurately summarise the impact of a social movement in numbers, especially when it’s still quite early days.
Thanks for writing. I’m with you on the idea of a self-imposed tax—seems like a reasonable idea for those who can do it and certainly the impact of donating can be more impactful than many other actions we can take. However, I don’t know if we can discount the gains that veganism (I’ll use veganism as it’s a lot more straightforward) makes so quickly. I know you’ve said that veganism isn’t bad or stupid, but that it’s not as impactful as other things we could do, so I’m keeping that in mind. I’m only thinking out loud here based on my intuition, so let’s see if this makes sense.
Veganism—as you know—is a philosophy against the exploitation of animals, based on ideas around animal sentience and the moral status of animals. Here are some thought that come to me based on that definition and your argument here:
One vegan meal, instead of a meat-based one, may make little difference compared to donating money, but by choosing a vegan meal someone is participating in a broader social movement and making a statement against animal exploitation. It’s a drop in the bucket, but every bit helps push the movement forward. The more individuals choose vegan options, the stronger and more influential the group gets as a whole which gives us more political leverage.
Veganism doesn’t ask people to do anything extra (like pay more for luxury goods). Instead, it asks people to refrain from doing something they otherwise would have done. This makes it feel different in kind than asking people to donate money, although I’ll admit that this doesn’t seem to make the former any easier unfortunately.
The vegan movement doesn’t only help animals exploited for food, but those in labs, zoos, circuses etc. In this way, contributing towards a more influential vegan movement could have a wider impact than it initially seems when we choose a vegan meal.
Those are just some initial thoughts that make me feel like the first step in your money pump argument (‘I give up one animal product-based meal in exchange for a less filling, vegetarian meal, which results in a slightly higher expected quality of life for some animals’) might be more like ‘I give up one animal product-based meal in exchange for a vegan meal (it surely doesn’t need to be less filling) which contributes to a stronger, more influential movement against animal exploitation’. Perhaps the extent to which this is true depends on the context in which you’re eating.
I’d love to hear more of your thoughts!
Thanks for your response! These are thoughtful points.
I’ll need to think more about the marginal impact of being a member of a movement like the vegan one. You raise some good points, and upon reflection, I remember that the vegans in my life have certainly inspired my actions at least a little bit. These are benefits that I am wrong to discount too much.
I think the step in my money pump argument that bothers me the most is choosing to buy a boba over donating to an effective charity, because it doesn’t seem in line with how I make my other decisions. I would really like my preferences to be transitive, as it makes me feel less hypocritical.
Perhaps the way I think about this is very abstracted away from how real people think about their choices, but I would argue that small charitable donations are less costly to many people than the choice to give up meat. On many restaurant menus, you can find a section that says something along the lines of “add chicken/beef/pork to this for $1.99” or something along those lines. Or maybe a menu will have something like “spaghetti and marinara sauce: $7.99; spaghetti and meatballs: $9.99.” The existence of these items at these prices implies that the value of giving up meat in these circumstances is worth at least $2 to some people (they would rather have the meat than have those $2). So, based on people’s revealed preferences through pricing, I think veganism is probably more costly to people than explicitly spending small amounts of money. Perhaps there is something to be said about the effort of going out of your way to donate, but in my experience, the process is quite painless.
I think you’re right about the reality of how people weigh up giving up meat vs donating. Many people would rather sacrifice a small amount of money than give up meat (as shown in your example). I suppose the best that we can do, in terms of advocacy, is encouraging people to do both or, failing that, one or the other. On paper, it’s possible that donating could look more impactful, but it can be hard to accurately summarise the impact of a social movement in numbers, especially when it’s still quite early days.