Veganism and the either-or fallacy
My vegan friends are gonna hate what I'm writing here. Don't get me wrong. I support veganism. All else equal, less suffering is better than more. However I am not sure whether the strategy behind veganism is the most effective.
I would argue that veganism falls into the trap of the either-or fallacy. That is, you can either be a meat eater, failed vegan (vegetarian) or vegan. This rationale totally neglects the quantity of meat and animal products in general which a person consumes. We should recognize that someone who eats meat once a week has a 14 times smaller impact than someone who eats meat for every meal.
This tendency to be absolute can create a sense of moral superiority which is not beneficial to the vegan cause. Though necessary sometimes, the division of individuals between vegans and non-vegans can lead to an implicit in group/out group separation, us versus them. In other words, the belief of one's "purity" in terms of food consumption can scare off the people who are interested in the movement but are afraid to be too extreme or rejected by the current social norms. Even meat defenders may not want to start a conversation with so-called "angry" vegans. When there is no conversation, there is no opportunity to learn from each other.
Of course, the strategy of polarization also has some benefits, by making clear stands on what is right or wrong and forging a sense of community. But given our political landscape we would be better off searching a for common ground and looking together for compromises.
Therefore, although I am not quite entirely convinced, I must admit there is a case for meat consumption, however with reserves. Meat tastes good and meat can be seen as part of our natural diet based on what kind of nutrition advice you believe.
However I hope to convince my fellow meat eaters that the case for a decrease in meat consumption is even stronger. In fact, eating meat less often may increase pleasure. Furthermore, you can combine this insight with the quantity-quality trade-off, high-quality products tasting on average better.
In the end, I would like to like in a world where all the animals live happily ever after. But, right now, any step in the direction of reduction of meat consumption and better factory farming conditions is positive.
Hence, to my meat-eating friends: why not skip meat every second meal where you would have eat one otherwise and see how it feels ? Remember, the distribution of meat consumption (as the distribution of wealth) is skewed. In other words, a small proportion of the population eat most of the meat.
Hence, to my vegan friends, why not discuss the benefits of eating fewer animals products with non-vegans ? The results would be in my opinion far greater. Cheers !
I would argue that veganism falls into the trap of the either-or fallacy. That is, you can either be a meat eater, failed vegan (vegetarian) or vegan. This rationale totally neglects the quantity of meat and animal products in general which a person consumes. We should recognize that someone who eats meat once a week has a 14 times smaller impact than someone who eats meat for every meal.
This tendency to be absolute can create a sense of moral superiority which is not beneficial to the vegan cause. Though necessary sometimes, the division of individuals between vegans and non-vegans can lead to an implicit in group/out group separation, us versus them. In other words, the belief of one's "purity" in terms of food consumption can scare off the people who are interested in the movement but are afraid to be too extreme or rejected by the current social norms. Even meat defenders may not want to start a conversation with so-called "angry" vegans. When there is no conversation, there is no opportunity to learn from each other.
Of course, the strategy of polarization also has some benefits, by making clear stands on what is right or wrong and forging a sense of community. But given our political landscape we would be better off searching a for common ground and looking together for compromises.
Therefore, although I am not quite entirely convinced, I must admit there is a case for meat consumption, however with reserves. Meat tastes good and meat can be seen as part of our natural diet based on what kind of nutrition advice you believe.
However I hope to convince my fellow meat eaters that the case for a decrease in meat consumption is even stronger. In fact, eating meat less often may increase pleasure. Furthermore, you can combine this insight with the quantity-quality trade-off, high-quality products tasting on average better.
In the end, I would like to like in a world where all the animals live happily ever after. But, right now, any step in the direction of reduction of meat consumption and better factory farming conditions is positive.
Hence, to my meat-eating friends: why not skip meat every second meal where you would have eat one otherwise and see how it feels ? Remember, the distribution of meat consumption (as the distribution of wealth) is skewed. In other words, a small proportion of the population eat most of the meat.
Hence, to my vegan friends, why not discuss the benefits of eating fewer animals products with non-vegans ? The results would be in my opinion far greater. Cheers !
Comments
Post a Comment