I recently thought of this question: Let's say you have $10 to spend on food, and your options are either

a. buying an organic meal that you know was made as ethically as possible for all $10, or

b. buy a factory-farmed meal for $5, and donating the remaining $5 to an effective charity


And if the better option is a, then at what point would b become the better option? (e.g. $4 meal $6 charity, $3 meal $7 charity etc.)

B becomes better than A as soon as your donation can accomplish more impact than creating one vegetarian meal.

Given that, according to my current guesses, a vegetarian year can be created for $2.50 to $333, you should at first glance go for the factory-farmed meal / donation split as soon as the organic meal costs $0.91 more (one third of a vegetarian day at pessimistic assumptions, i.e. one meal).

However, this neglects the influence value (and health value) of being vegan, which, in my opinion, makes it better to be vegetarian. It's a bit difficult to advocate for veganism while eating meat.

Lastly, this analysis also neglects the fact that, in practice, vegan meals are almost always cheaper than meat meals, so you can actually get a win-win scenario here. There's not much need to actually buy organic.

peterhurford wrote:at first glance go for the factory-farmed meal / donation split as soon as the organic meal costs $0.91 more (one third of a vegetarian day at pessimistic assumptions, i.e. one meal).

This would be assuming the vegetarian would have eaten factory farmed food with every meal. I'm not sure what a good, safe assumption would be though.

peterhurford wrote:It's a bit difficult to advocate for veganism while eating meat.

Good point. I used essentially this point in my post the other day. I would like your opinion though, can you advocate veganism when eating a bit of dairy now and then? I suppose Peter Singer does it, but that is circumstantial (i.e. when he's at someones house, being fed).

Also, you suddenly switched from saying "vegan" then specifying "meat". Perhaps just a word choice issue.

peterhurford wrote:Lastly, this analysis also neglects the fact that, in practice, vegan meals are almost always cheaper than meat meals, so you can actually get a win-win scenario here.

I would agree that vegan meals CAN be cheaper, but if you're strict, you lose a LOT of cheap options. Also, if you buy fake meats, that can be a bit pricey.

peterhurford wrote:There's not much need to actually buy organic.

Agreed. though this could be a lengthy discussion. Are we morally obligated, then, to buy non-organic? It would seem so to me. what about the pesticides? Do they cause suffering? greater suffering that organic?

"Agreed. though this could be a lengthy discussion. Are we morally obligated, then, to buy non-organic? It would seem so to me. what about the pesticides? Do they cause suffering? greater suffering that organic?"

I'm fairly certain organic ( at least at the industrial level) uses pesticides as much as conventional. I had a friend who worked as a field inspector one summer and his boss said the difference was that on the organic fields they sprayed pesticides which were on the approved list(not necessarily safer, certainly not for the insects.).

" I would like your opinion though, can you advocate veganism when eating a bit of dairy now and then?"

I eat animal products when I can get them for free or they would go to waste otherwise, and it's tough to say what others think of this. I do think it is better to explain up front my reasons for doing so and that twist can spark interest in people who might not have wanted to discuss generic veganism without it.

I eat animal products when I can get them for free or they would go to waste otherwise, and it's tough to say what others think of this. I do think it is better to explain up front my reasons for doing so and that twist can spark interest in people who might not have wanted to discuss generic veganism without it.

I used to do this, but then gave it up when I decided that (a) I wanted to pursue a more consistent and better planned diet and (b) I was tired of having to explain myself every time. I also got the feeling that people didn't really understand the explanation because consequentialism isn't always intuitive.

Zack wrote:I'm fairly certain organic ( at least at the industrial level) uses pesticides as much as conventional. I had a friend who worked as a field inspector one summer and his boss said the difference was that on the organic fields they sprayed pesticides which were on the approved list(not necessarily safer, certainly not for the insects.).

I suspected as much. I'm just uncertain of how painful these methods are relative to each other. I see no reason why organic couldn't be more painful. In fact, this is my intuitive guess because I'd imagine it's somewhat less effective or slower... or something. Of course, I don't know much about it, it's potentially a big deal. (that essay is somewhat flawed if you ask me, but it was written with utilitarian intention and thought, and that's what counts)

Zack wrote:I eat animal products when I can get them for free or they would go to waste otherwise, and it's tough to say what others think of this. I do think it is better to explain up front my reasons for doing so and that twist can spark interest in people who might not have wanted to discuss generic veganism without it.

I also have the same dietary plan. I am a "moral consequentialist vegan". However, I have never referred to myself as such. I just say "I'm a vegan" to decline food offered, and when they ask why I usually just say "morals". This is something I should probably change, for I generally think negatively of dietary vegans, much like I think of religion. For example, I was reading about vegan top ramen (only nissin brand oriental is vegan) and one person said something to the effect of "you can just throw out the flavor packet and eat the noodles because they are vegan". Essentially a religion in such a case.

How should we refer to ourselves? This could be a very interesting and possibly fruitful topic. I'm thinking I may start referring to myself as a "moral consequentialist vegan" or just a "consequentialist vegan". If done right, this could have exponential effects, particularly among low hanging fruit. However, a more challenging thing to explain would be if decide to buy non-vegan food and make up for it with a donation.

How do you refer to yourself currently? Do you have any trial and error experience you could share?

peterhurford wrote:

I eat animal products when I can get them for free or they would go to waste otherwise, and it's tough to say what others think of this. I do think it is better to explain up front my reasons for doing so and that twist can spark interest in people who might not have wanted to discuss generic veganism without it.

I used to do this, but then gave it up when I decided that (a) I wanted to pursue a more consistent and better planned diet and (b) I was tired of having to explain myself every time. I also got the feeling that people didn't really understand the explanation because consequentialism isn't always intuitive.

(a) So, what do you say now when people ask questions about it? (b) But, what do you think is the expected value is for the few people who can/might understand?

I also have the same dietary plan. I am a "moral consequentialist vegan". However, I have never referred to myself as such. I just say "I'm a vegan" to decline food offered, and when they ask why I usually just say "morals". This is something I should probably change, for I generally think negatively of dietary vegans, much like I think of religion. For example, I was reading about vegan top ramen (only nissin brand oriental is vegan) and one person said something to the effect of "you can just throw out the flavor packet and eat the noodles because they are vegan". Essentially a religion in such a case.

Yea that last part gets to me too, someone suggested to me that I order pizza and just take the cheese off(I work at a pizza place where the owner refuses to make pizza without cheese) and I'm not sure if I got through to them why this would be a bad thing to do.

How should we refer to ourselves? This could be a very interesting and possibly fruitful topic. I'm thinking I may start referring to myself as a "moral consequentialist vegan" or just a "consequentialist vegan". If done right, this could have exponential effects, particularly among low hanging fruit. However, a more challenging thing to explain would be if decide to buy non-vegan food and make up for it with a donation.

How do you refer to yourself currently? Do you have any trial and error experience you could share?

I agree it would be nice to have a word. Freegan would work except that I do still pay for a large portion of my food so I'm sure that would upset the hardcore dumpster divers. Likewise vegan would upset a few. So far i've just said I don't pay for any animal products but if they are available for free i'll take them. Some people get it some don't. One thing I've found that helps people is to point out that even in the production of plant food alot of rodents die during harvesting and processing so by not throwing away that slice of pizza someone left behind I would be reducing the total amount of death/suffering. I might also try mentioning that using the money saved I can donate to a worthwhile cause( I haven't used this before because I'm extremely new to EA and before I had just been focused on reducing my personal contribution to suffering.)


As for buying the non vegan food, I can't really see it working. Like Peter said most vegan meals are cheaper anyway and it is much harder to explain than not letting something go to waste.

Are we morally obligated, then, to buy non-organic? It would seem so to me. what about the pesticides? Do they cause suffering? greater suffering that organic?

shaaneson wrote:Are we morally obligated, then, to buy non-organic? It would seem so to me. what about the pesticides? Do they cause suffering? greater suffering that organic?

Did you register an account just so you could roll your eyes at me? Perhaps you don't understand the severity of the topic.

On the other hand, perhaps you have some information that makes such questions sound silly. If such is the case, please share.

Zack wrote:As for buying the non vegan food, I can't really see it working. Like Peter said most vegan meals are cheaper anyway and it is much harder to explain than not letting something go to waste.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "not see it working". It is based on the fact that I'm never going to be able to behave perfectly utilitarian, therefore would unnecessarily spend money on myself. Therefore, I could either go see a movie, or eat ice-cream and make a donation. When only considering first order effects, it should, moraly speaking, work dandy (from a utilitarian's moral perspective). However, complications arise when considering second or third order effects etc. (i.e. explaining to people or convincing people that they should do the same or similar)
You can read my thread to see how I would set it up.

Also, I noted that vegan meals are only cheaper under certain conditions (e.g. eating standards). Also, Peter said "meat" specifically, which is FAR easier to avoid than being a strict vegan (i.e. many cereals, much sugar[both noted in my thread], etc.). (I not sure if he meant to say "meat" or not)

inQuestion wrote:

peterhurford wrote:

peterhurford wrote:Lastly, this analysis also neglects the fact that, in practice, vegan meals are almost always cheaper than meat meals, so you can actually get a win-win scenario here.

I would agree that vegan meals CAN be cheaper, but if you're strict, you lose a LOT of cheap options. Also, if you buy fake meats, that can be a bit pricey.

Lastly, I would like to note that If I buy just cereals and sugary foods and the like, then it should be understandable and relatively easy to explain. On the other hand, if I buy animal products directly and yet proclaim to be some form of "vegan", though it may turn some people away, it could actually help insofar as it will peek people's interest.
What do you think about this? I suppose people are pretty hard to predict. Perhaps I should try it sometime and see what the effects are?

I'm not really sure what you mean by "not see it working".

Yea I guess I should have said I can't see myself doing this.

Lastly, I would like to note that If I buy just cereals and sugary foods and the like, then it should be understandable and relatively easy to explain.

Yea I imagine most people wouldn't even notice you eating a sugary cereal, I doubt many outside of vegan circles even know about the bone char or various minerals. A gallon of milk might be a different story though.

On the other hand, if I buy animal products directly and yet proclaim to be some form of "vegan", though it may turn some people away, it could actually help insofar as it will peek people's interest.
What do you think about this? I suppose people are pretty hard to predict. Perhaps I should try it sometime and see what the effects are?

I try to avoid using the word vegan when describing myself because I find this does turn people off when I mention that I would eat meat that was going to be thrown out anyway. This would apply even more so in your situation, I think maybe just say I don't buy much meat/cheese/milk and I try to donate some money for each purchase when I do. I've heard some people call themselves flexitarian which means they occasionally eat non vegan/veggie stuff but I find this to be an awkward and uncomfortable word. In theory it opens up a discussion about the broader topic of utilitarianism versus deontological veganism which could be a good thing, except I think in general people don't get it. And the ones who do you probably could have brought it up somehow anyway.

tldr: If that's what you gotta do go for it, but my one piece of advice which I think would be most useful is to avoid the veg*an words and just go straight to saying something about util/consequences.

peterhurford wrote:

I used to do this, but then gave it up when I decided that (a) I wanted to pursue a more consistent and better planned diet and (b) I was tired of having to explain myself every time. I also got the feeling that people didn't really understand the explanation because consequentialism isn't always intuitive.

Hey Peter, I'm thinking about not doing this anymore as well. I would probably still explain to people that I'm not against it morally, but for consistency I think I'm just going to go without. Can I ask why you chose to include dairy and animal products? Also what animal products did you mean, ie like leather or just the small stuff like vitamin d3 in cereal?