Personally I would prefer growing up in prison and being slaughtered when done growing to never having existed in the first place.
The consequence of eating less meat would seem to be fewer farm animals existing. It seems possible, even likely, that many farm animals suffer so much that their existence is net negative, though I find that hard to judge. But arguing that this has to be the case for any and all kinds of farming seems to be a stretch to me. If you are concerned about the wellbeing of animals buying low suffering high happiness meat and encouraging others to do likewise seems a more effective strategy than boycotting meat altogether (it might be that the resources saved by vegetarianism would allow greater gains from buying food and animal utils separately, but it’s far from obvious to me that this is actually the case. Right now vegetarian dishes seem to be more expensive than equivalent dishes with factory meat for me if I factor in time, and I suspect “happy” meat is much more appealing than vegetarianism for most people who aren’t already inclined towards vegetarianism).
I admit that animal wellbeing is not a very high priority for me so I’m not doing that consistently, but I don’t eat all that much meat and I’ve stopped eating fish even though I like it more than most other sorts of meat since it’s not defensible on the grounds above (I used to buy sustainably fished fish).
For the above reason I would also prefer “happy” meat to indistinguishable artificial meat with identical footprint (though since artificial meat seems very likely to have a lower footprint this is probably moot).
Semi-related: an interesting argument for legalizing bestiality is that what the zoophile does to their animals in their home is done in the agribusiness industry but on scales orders of magnitude larger (and the goal is to get a buck, not get off). When you frame the issue of “should the person down the street be able to rape their dog?” in the context of “should the farm down the street be able to rape hundreds of cows routinely?” things look somewhat different.
In the Christopher Buckley novel Thank You for Smoking and its film adaptation, the main character Nick Naylor justifies his career to a reporter by telling her that “Everybody has a mortgage to pay,” and referring to his response as the “Yuppie Nuremberg Defense.”
There’s some odd stuff in the culture to the effect that doing a bad thing for fun is drastically worse than doing it as part of one’s job.
If you refuse a job getting paid to do 478 units of bad things for $3,000 you will not prevent 478 bad things from being done. At best removing yourself from the labour market may mean that the sinister employer may only be able to afford someone who can do 475 bad things for the $3,000.
There are also cases where taking the job yourself may reduce the amount of ‘bad’ that gets done. If you actually care about what is happening you may be able to minimise the damage. You will not take shortcuts, maybe you will put in some extra effort to give the employer what they want while doing slightly less damage.
Conscientious objection and blaming the individual employee (calling them ‘bad’, etc) is a naive approach to achieving change.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, it proves too much: it allows one to engage in all sorts of wrongdoing so long as someone is willing to pay for it. Second, there’s some acausal effects whereby if you refuse to do bad things, people using the same algorithm as you will similarly refuse to do bad things.
Also, by doing bad things, you give your implicit approval of others doing them.
Finally, by accepting pay to do wrong, you encourage employers to pay people to do wrong.
There’s some odd stuff in the culture to the effect that doing a bad thing for fun is drastically worse than doing it as part of one’s job.
This is hardly odd- it’s not hard to see someone choosing to be a janitor because someone has to do it, but it’s weird to see someone choosing to be a janitor because they enjoy working with shit. That still works the same if you move from janitor to executioner or animal rapist.
What’s odd about it is that if something is bad and people do it for pleasure, there’s probably going to be less of it than if it’s part of what’s considered valuable for large institutions.
I think.
Actually, there are examples pointing in both directions. Your example of animals being raped backs my theory—I don’t think there are nearly as many animals being sexually abused by people who like that sort of thing (nor would there be if bestiality were socially accepted) as there are animals being forced into breeding in the food industry.
On the other hand, there are plausibly more dogs forced into fighting because there’s money to be made at it than there would be it it were only a private pastime.
I actually made this exact argument recently (I am currently in a production of Albee’s The Goat, so zoophilia is coming up rather more frequently in my conversation than it typically does), and it was officially declared the most appalling thing I’d said in recent memory.
I managed to suppress the urge to reply “Moving on to child sacrifice...”
Personally I would prefer growing up in prison and being slaughtered when done growing to never having existed in the first place.
The consequence of eating less meat would seem to be fewer farm animals existing. It seems possible, even likely, that many farm animals suffer so much that their existence is net negative, though I find that hard to judge. But arguing that this has to be the case for any and all kinds of farming seems to be a stretch to me. If you are concerned about the wellbeing of animals buying low suffering high happiness meat and encouraging others to do likewise seems a more effective strategy than boycotting meat altogether (it might be that the resources saved by vegetarianism would allow greater gains from buying food and animal utils separately, but it’s far from obvious to me that this is actually the case. Right now vegetarian dishes seem to be more expensive than equivalent dishes with factory meat for me if I factor in time, and I suspect “happy” meat is much more appealing than vegetarianism for most people who aren’t already inclined towards vegetarianism).
I admit that animal wellbeing is not a very high priority for me so I’m not doing that consistently, but I don’t eat all that much meat and I’ve stopped eating fish even though I like it more than most other sorts of meat since it’s not defensible on the grounds above (I used to buy sustainably fished fish).
For the above reason I would also prefer “happy” meat to indistinguishable artificial meat with identical footprint (though since artificial meat seems very likely to have a lower footprint this is probably moot).
Seriously? I wouldn’t.
(I wonder if it would be worth doing a poll on that...)
Does it depend to the life quality in prison and the life span before being slaughtered at all? Maybe I’m just envisioning a nicer prison.
American prisons are orders of magnitude nicer than what factory farm animals grow up in.
Semi-related: an interesting argument for legalizing bestiality is that what the zoophile does to their animals in their home is done in the agribusiness industry but on scales orders of magnitude larger (and the goal is to get a buck, not get off). When you frame the issue of “should the person down the street be able to rape their dog?” in the context of “should the farm down the street be able to rape hundreds of cows routinely?” things look somewhat different.
There’s some odd stuff in the culture to the effect that doing a bad thing for fun is drastically worse than doing it as part of one’s job.
As there should be. Doing it as part of one’s job makes barely any impact at the margin. Doing it for fun usually makes the full bad effect.
You’re saying that people are apt to be more thorough about doing what they enjoy?
However, the badness done as part of jobs can happen on a grand scale and scarcely be noticed.
No, just referring to a basic principle of economics as it relates to personal responsibility.
I still don’t know what you mean. Margin of what? Impact of what?
Possibly relevant:
If you refuse a job getting paid to do 478 units of bad things for $3,000 you will not prevent 478 bad things from being done. At best removing yourself from the labour market may mean that the sinister employer may only be able to afford someone who can do 475 bad things for the $3,000.
There are also cases where taking the job yourself may reduce the amount of ‘bad’ that gets done. If you actually care about what is happening you may be able to minimise the damage. You will not take shortcuts, maybe you will put in some extra effort to give the employer what they want while doing slightly less damage.
Conscientious objection and blaming the individual employee (calling them ‘bad’, etc) is a naive approach to achieving change.
There are a couple of problems with this. First, it proves too much: it allows one to engage in all sorts of wrongdoing so long as someone is willing to pay for it. Second, there’s some acausal effects whereby if you refuse to do bad things, people using the same algorithm as you will similarly refuse to do bad things.
Also, by doing bad things, you give your implicit approval of others doing them.
Finally, by accepting pay to do wrong, you encourage employers to pay people to do wrong.
This is hardly odd- it’s not hard to see someone choosing to be a janitor because someone has to do it, but it’s weird to see someone choosing to be a janitor because they enjoy working with shit. That still works the same if you move from janitor to executioner or animal rapist.
What’s odd about it is that if something is bad and people do it for pleasure, there’s probably going to be less of it than if it’s part of what’s considered valuable for large institutions.
I think.
Actually, there are examples pointing in both directions. Your example of animals being raped backs my theory—I don’t think there are nearly as many animals being sexually abused by people who like that sort of thing (nor would there be if bestiality were socially accepted) as there are animals being forced into breeding in the food industry.
On the other hand, there are plausibly more dogs forced into fighting because there’s money to be made at it than there would be it it were only a private pastime.
I actually made this exact argument recently (I am currently in a production of Albee’s The Goat, so zoophilia is coming up rather more frequently in my conversation than it typically does), and it was officially declared the most appalling thing I’d said in recent memory.
I managed to suppress the urge to reply “Moving on to child sacrifice...”
A more direct comparison is cockfighting and poultry farming.