Increasing such suffering via one’s marginal consumption [of factory-farmed meat or farmed fish] is bad on virtually all consequentialist views.
The issue isn’t your consumption at the margin. The issue is all of your consumption (actually purchasing) of these foods.
2
It is widely acknowledged that, to human psychology, racism is a ticking bomb that we should make a consistent effort to steer away from, lest we corrode our collective attitudes and in turn end up systematically exploiting and harming certain groups of individuals.
A ticking bomb (approximately) hasn’t caused any harm yet. Racism has already caused immense harm. So that analogy is wrong. And it’s presented as something the author claims is widely acknowledged, so that’s wrong too.
3
Common sense suggests that we cannot think clearly about the moral status of a given group of individuals as long as we eat them.
Common sense says that it’s difficult to think clearly when you have some large incentive or bias. But it doesn’t make an impossibility claim (“cannot”).
4
Title:
Underappreciated consequentialist reasons to avoid consuming animal products
Later:
we should adhere to stricter principles than a naive consequentialist analysis might imply.
A good reason to adhere to reasonably strict principles is that, if we loosen our principles and leave everything up for case-by-case calculation, we open the door for biases to sneak in.
The title suggests he’ll give arguments from a consequentialist perspective, but then he started arguing with consequentialism (at least the “naive” types, but he didn’t explain what types exist and how the naive and non-naive types differ).
I don’t think this is significant. The use of the word “consumption” is interchangeable with purchasing in economic contexts. The use of the word “marginal” is possibly superfluous. However, I think there’s an interpretation that makes sense here, where an individual is increasing total suffering “at the margin” by virtue of their consumption. That is, they are not responsible for the whole of the suffering, but the marginal increase in suffering caused by their personal consumption. The language is unclear, but I would not agree that it is a significant error (unless you consider unclarity or vagueness to be significant mistakes).
2-4 I agree with you. I particularly appreciate the point about ‘naive vs. non-naive’.
1
The issue isn’t your consumption at the margin. The issue is all of your consumption (actually purchasing) of these foods.
2
A ticking bomb (approximately) hasn’t caused any harm yet. Racism has already caused immense harm. So that analogy is wrong. And it’s presented as something the author claims is widely acknowledged, so that’s wrong too.
3
Common sense says that it’s difficult to think clearly when you have some large incentive or bias. But it doesn’t make an impossibility claim (“cannot”).
4
Title:
Later:
The title suggests he’ll give arguments from a consequentialist perspective, but then he started arguing with consequentialism (at least the “naive” types, but he didn’t explain what types exist and how the naive and non-naive types differ).
Thanks for writing this.
I don’t think this is significant. The use of the word “consumption” is interchangeable with purchasing in economic contexts. The use of the word “marginal” is possibly superfluous. However, I think there’s an interpretation that makes sense here, where an individual is increasing total suffering “at the margin” by virtue of their consumption. That is, they are not responsible for the whole of the suffering, but the marginal increase in suffering caused by their personal consumption. The language is unclear, but I would not agree that it is a significant error (unless you consider unclarity or vagueness to be significant mistakes).
2-4 I agree with you. I particularly appreciate the point about ‘naive vs. non-naive’.
cheers