The number would be much higher than 60% on strictly utilitarian grounds
Why?
In most circumstances any given act of (non-)consumption is unlikely to make a difference—but aggregate present consumption must play a large role in determining future production.
My default assumption is that each decision not to consume 1 animal’s worth of meat has a 1/n chance of preventing the raising for slaughter of n animals. That can only be an approximation of the truth, but what is a more reasonable estimate?
Or if that is agreed to be a reasonable estimate, why should a utilitarian who cares about animal welfare, and believes that agricultural animals’ lives are net negative, not change their diet as a result?
Why?
In most circumstances any given act of (non-)consumption is unlikely to make a difference—but aggregate present consumption must play a large role in determining future production.
My default assumption is that each decision not to consume 1 animal’s worth of meat has a 1/n chance of preventing the raising for slaughter of n animals. That can only be an approximation of the truth, but what is a more reasonable estimate?
Or if that is agreed to be a reasonable estimate, why should a utilitarian who cares about animal welfare, and believes that agricultural animals’ lives are net negative, not change their diet as a result?