RSS

Ethics of per­sonal consumption

TagLast edit: 2 Jun 2022 19:17 UTC by Leo

The ethics of personal consumption concerns the ethical issues arising from our consumption choices.

The consumption of certain products is likely to have direct harmful consequences. For example, eating meat will, in expectation, increase the number of animals in factory farms. In addition, consuming some of these products may support harmful social norms. For example, eating meat can support the view that the interests of other species should be discounted or ignored.

Moreover, the issues are not purely consequentialist, and there are deontological constraints on consumption choices (for instance, it might be unacceptable to buy from sweatshops even if refusing to do so did not create tangibly better outcomes).

There are, however, reasons to think that changing one’s own consumption decisions is not a cost-effective way to spend one’s time or money. One such factor is opportunity cost: spending more resources on ethically sourced products leaves fewer resources to spend on even more important projects. And in many cases, one person buying less of something can indirectly lead to others buying more, offsetting some or all the good done.

Budgeting for yourself and others

A dollar donated to a cost-effective charity can do over a hundred times more good as a dollar spent on personal consumption.[1] This might seem to lead to the conclusion that all money not spent on the essentials of life should be donated to charity. However, allowing oneself some discretionary spending may well be necessary to happiness, productivity and commitment to giving. Most members of the community budget reasonable portions of their income for themselves, to stay motivated, prevent burnout, and increase productivity.[2]

Some members of the effective altruism community suggest setting a “charity budget”: a clearly defined amount of money to be given to charity each year.[3] This allows people to make a decision once per year, rather than every time they purchase something for themselves, which can help to reduce emotional distress. Others have argued that self-investment (for instance in respectable clothing) can increase one’s efficacy in many ways, and that therefore it may be worth prioritizing a certain level of self-investment over direct donations.[4]

Environmental consumption

Climate change could potentially have a major impact on human health and wellbeing. Other environmental issues like air pollution and environmental degradation are already having serious consequences.

Environmentalists often favor interventions that involve changes in personal consumption: travelling less by plane, offsetting carbon emissions, buying more second-hand items, and replacing goods less often, as well as forms of dietary change. Members of the effective altruist community have generally emphasized other approaches, such as political advocacy and donating to effective environmental charities.

Further reading

Kuhn, Ben (2013) Conversation with Alice Yu on effective environmentalism, Ben Kuhn’s Blog, December.
A general discussion of effective environmentalism, including criticism of local and organic food.

MacAskill, William (2015) Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Make a Difference, New York: Random House.
Chapter 1 introduces the idea of the ‘100x Multiplier’, according to which people in developed societies can do at least 100 times more to benefit others as they can to benefit themselves.

Zabel, Claire (2016) Ethical offsetting is antithetical to EA, Effective Altruism Forum, January 5.
A general argument against offsetting.

Related entries

dietary change | fair trade | marginal charity | moral offsetting

  1. ^

    MacAskill, William (2015) Doing Good Better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Make a Difference, New York: Random House.

  2. ^

    Kaufman, Jeff (2013) Keeping choices donation neutral, Jeff Kaufman’s Blog, May 11.

  3. ^

    Wise, Julia (2015) Burnout and self-care, Effective Altruism Forum, October 23.

  4. ^

    Hurford, Peter (2014) You have a set amount of “weirdness points”. Spend them wisely, Effective Altruism Forum, November 27.

Some thoughts on veg­e­tar­i­anism and veganism

richard_ngo14 Feb 2022 2:34 UTC
192 points
102 comments4 min readEA link

[Question] How could effec­tive al­tru­ists help im­prove work­ing con­di­tions in low-in­come coun­tries?

Maxim Vandaele22 Apr 2023 14:42 UTC
26 points
9 comments1 min readEA link

The Role of In­di­vi­d­ual Con­sump­tion De­ci­sions in An­i­mal Welfare and Cli­mate are Analogous

Gabriel Weil10 Jun 2022 6:18 UTC
40 points
35 comments11 min readEA link

[Question] Where does most of the suffer­ing from eat­ing meat come from?

Gordon Seidoh Worley9 Nov 2021 3:09 UTC
10 points
8 comments1 min readEA link

An un­com­fortable thought ex­per­i­ment for anti-speciesist non-vegans

JackM18 Apr 2022 9:17 UTC
34 points
20 comments3 min readEA link

Cost-effec­tive­ness of buy­ing or­ganic in­stead of barn eggs

Vasco Grilo🔸14 Jun 2024 16:29 UTC
23 points
2 comments3 min readEA link

[Question] Favourite ve­gan lug­gage?

DanielFilan31 Mar 2024 19:47 UTC
6 points
1 comment1 min readEA link

Founders Pledge’s Cli­mate Change Fund might be more cost-effec­tive than GiveWell’s top char­i­ties, but it is much less cost-effec­tive than cor­po­rate cam­paigns for chicken welfare?

Vasco Grilo🔸5 May 2024 9:10 UTC
60 points
13 comments9 min readEA link

Per­sonal con­sump­tion changes as charity

Jeff Kaufman 🔸31 Jul 2013 4:00 UTC
4 points
0 comments1 min readEA link

An em­bar­rass­ment of riches

Julia_Wise🔸19 Nov 2015 18:23 UTC
55 points
3 comments5 min readEA link

At what cost, car­nivory?

Gregory Lewis🔸29 Oct 2015 23:37 UTC
12 points
13 comments15 min readEA link

Launch­ing 60,000,000,000 Chick­ens: A Give Well-Style CEA Spread­sheet for An­i­mal Welfare

AppliedDivinityStudies4 Jun 2021 21:08 UTC
35 points
19 comments3 min readEA link

The Wages of North-At­lantic Bias

Sach Wry19 Aug 2022 12:34 UTC
8 points
2 comments17 min readEA link

When should an Effec­tive Altru­ist be veg­e­tar­ian?

Katja_Grace23 Nov 2014 5:23 UTC
17 points
56 comments10 min readEA link

Scott Alexan­der – A Modest Proposal

Zach Stein-Perlman26 Nov 2008 17:00 UTC
19 points
4 comments3 min readEA link
(web.archive.org)

Marginal Reducetarianism

phgubbins12 Jan 2023 18:44 UTC
24 points
0 comments5 min readEA link

Yes/​No de­bate #2: Is it OK to eat meat? (Ger­man)

jorges22 Oct 2023 14:48 UTC
9 points
0 comments1 min readEA link

What can we do now to pre­pare for AI sen­tience, in or­der to pro­tect them from the global scale of hu­man sadism?

rime18 Apr 2023 9:58 UTC
44 points
0 comments2 min readEA link

Count­ing Costless Beneficence

Richard Y Chappell🔸4 Nov 2024 15:32 UTC
12 points
0 comments2 min readEA link
(www.goodthoughts.blog)

Per­sonal cli­mate im­pact question

fergusb123214 Jul 2022 11:37 UTC
2 points
2 comments1 min readEA link

Rea­sons to eat meat

kbog21 Apr 2019 20:37 UTC
43 points
43 comments3 min readEA link

If Ve­ganism Is Not a Choice: The Mo­ral Psy­chol­ogy of Pos­si­bil­ities in An­i­mal Ethics

Gordon Seidoh Worley20 Jan 2020 18:07 UTC
15 points
1 comment1 min readEA link
(www.mdpi.com)

Should I be ve­gan?

Jess_Whittlestone17 May 2015 12:06 UTC
33 points
53 comments9 min readEA link

[Question] What are the ethics of eat­ing car­nivorous an­i­mals?

George Stiffman22 Jul 2022 18:14 UTC
21 points
4 comments1 min readEA link

Eth­i­cal offset­ting is an­ti­thet­i­cal to EA

ClaireZabel5 Jan 2016 17:49 UTC
43 points
78 comments3 min readEA link

Re­move An Om­nivore’s Statue? De­bate En­sues Over The Le­gacy Of Fac­tory Farming

scottxmulligan26 Oct 2021 17:47 UTC
80 points
27 comments1 min readEA link

Don’t sweat diet?

Gregory Lewis🔸22 Oct 2015 20:15 UTC
18 points
41 comments5 min readEA link

Car­bon Offsets as an Non-Altru­is­tic Expense

Davidmanheim3 Dec 2019 11:38 UTC
25 points
7 comments2 min readEA link