One thing about 'all purchases cause harm' is that you have to think about what the actual consequence of a boycott is. If huge numbers of people joined in a boycott of all capitalist products, entire economies would collapse. That seems bad. It's why most socialists favor moving to socialism through democratic legislation. Or, say you, as an individual, want to stop buying from sweatshops. I'm not sure that actually reduces harm. Presumably it's better for those people to work in a sweatshop than to not work at all. If the sweatshop lost enough profits to shut down, that would probably be a lot worse for the people in the area. Maybe some organized mass boycott could put enough pressure on governments to introduce better labor laws, but an individual boycott doesn't seem particularly helpful. When it comes to veganism, however, the consequence of you not eating meat is that, on average, less animals we be tortured and killed. I don't see any downside in that.
I think a better argument for eating animal products is that the animals wouldn't exist if it wasn't for animal agriculture. This wouldn't justify factory farming, but if you could have higher welfare farms, then you could argue it's better for them to exist than not exist. I don't find the argument convincing, but I think it's probably the best one.
Yes, I agree. From what I understand, sweatshops are sadly often the better jobs in the area they operate in. Successfully boycotting them would just force their employees into worse jobs, or worse, homelessness. With animal agriculture though, I'm quite happy for it to shut down because no animals being killed is better than many billions of them dying in agony.
I also think that's another decent argument, I had considered using it in this article as my example. I think it doesn't work too, but might write about that in depth at a later time.
Could you elaborate on that? Like I know you’re likely referencing Nietzsche here, but it’s not clear how moral concerns for animals is going to be an instance of slave morality and other cases of moral thought aren’t. Unless you’re just saying caring about animals is slave morality, because EVERY moral view is just slave morality (or something like that).
I don't think this argument works very well as a pro life argument, as it requires that the cost of abstaining from causing harm is very trivial. Playing it safe by not eating animals products is quite different from playing it safe by not having an abortion, as abstaining from abortion has more serious consequences for yourself
That study found that vegetarians are more likely to have some specific genes. I'm not sure that some people having a genetic predisposition towards being vegetarian says much about what we're talking about. It's not as though you can draw from that that for people who don't have that genetic predisposition, there really will be non trivial consequences for them if they abstain from animal products
One thing about 'all purchases cause harm' is that you have to think about what the actual consequence of a boycott is. If huge numbers of people joined in a boycott of all capitalist products, entire economies would collapse. That seems bad. It's why most socialists favor moving to socialism through democratic legislation. Or, say you, as an individual, want to stop buying from sweatshops. I'm not sure that actually reduces harm. Presumably it's better for those people to work in a sweatshop than to not work at all. If the sweatshop lost enough profits to shut down, that would probably be a lot worse for the people in the area. Maybe some organized mass boycott could put enough pressure on governments to introduce better labor laws, but an individual boycott doesn't seem particularly helpful. When it comes to veganism, however, the consequence of you not eating meat is that, on average, less animals we be tortured and killed. I don't see any downside in that.
I think a better argument for eating animal products is that the animals wouldn't exist if it wasn't for animal agriculture. This wouldn't justify factory farming, but if you could have higher welfare farms, then you could argue it's better for them to exist than not exist. I don't find the argument convincing, but I think it's probably the best one.
Yes, I agree. From what I understand, sweatshops are sadly often the better jobs in the area they operate in. Successfully boycotting them would just force their employees into worse jobs, or worse, homelessness. With animal agriculture though, I'm quite happy for it to shut down because no animals being killed is better than many billions of them dying in agony.
I also think that's another decent argument, I had considered using it in this article as my example. I think it doesn't work too, but might write about that in depth at a later time.
Good reasoning. I'd like to see good counterarguments on that point.
Caring about animals is slave morality!
Could you elaborate on that? Like I know you’re likely referencing Nietzsche here, but it’s not clear how moral concerns for animals is going to be an instance of slave morality and other cases of moral thought aren’t. Unless you’re just saying caring about animals is slave morality, because EVERY moral view is just slave morality (or something like that).
I don't think this argument works very well as a pro life argument, as it requires that the cost of abstaining from causing harm is very trivial. Playing it safe by not eating animals products is quite different from playing it safe by not having an abortion, as abstaining from abortion has more serious consequences for yourself
That study found that vegetarians are more likely to have some specific genes. I'm not sure that some people having a genetic predisposition towards being vegetarian says much about what we're talking about. It's not as though you can draw from that that for people who don't have that genetic predisposition, there really will be non trivial consequences for them if they abstain from animal products