I think I might be one of the people you describe, but I don’t think you understand the reason that people get offended.
I am not offended by the facts about factory farming, or that meat production releases methane. I am offended by the implication that someone will forcefully take away my ability to consume foods that I want to eat, and will use morality to justify it. Removing the freedom to eat meat is still taking away freedom no matter how you justify it and people will resent it.
If your goal is to improve the quality of life for livestock or reduce emissions from livestock, perhaps by changing the diet that animals are fed: nobody will have a problem.
As soon as you imply that someone’s way of life is immoral and their diet must be forcefully changed, you will encounter huge resistance.
Personally, it’s wild to me to think that the ‘freedom’ to eat meat is ever in question. It’d take such a ridiculously over-the-top totalitarian move to make something like that happen. I just don’t see it as possible, it’d be like banning smartphones.
On the other hand, I do see a world where regulations increase the cost of meat (by making these factory farms do things which improve the livelihoods of the animals, but cost $). But..that’s not taking away freedom, that’s just any other tragedy of the commons regulation that prices in the negative externalities to the action that causes them. (Think: climate change emissions here, not morality)
Are you willing to entertain the idea that your way of life might be immoral? How would someone go about proving so, how would you go about disproving it?
For some people, an industrial farm has the same moral implications as a labor camp. Implying, that you as a beneficiary from said labor camp would be open to talk about improving the food options in the camp, might seem quite beside the point to them. They oppose the mere existence of the camp.
>How would someone go about proving so, how would you go about disproving it?
Morality, boiled down to its essence, is an opinion. You can't prove or disprove an opinion of course, and you certainly don't have to entertain them if you don't want to.
I'm always desperate to understand the mechanisms around this, so thank you for the insights.
Regarding the opening line of your last paragraph, are you in disagreement with the idea that eating meat is immoral, or are you just saying it is offensive for someone to tell you what you're doing is immoral full stop (whatever the topic)?
I ask because at the start you say you arent offended by the facts about factory farming and climate impacts - so it sounds like you realise the immoralness? But your key issue is with someone judging you for that immoral action, and for suggesting you should change? Or have I misinterpreted?
Of course, thank you for the understanding response!
I don't think that eating meat is immoral, animals eat each other every day, and I think that most people are okay with this.
But I can recognize that the conditions in factory farms are not okay, the misery that the animals experience is not ethical, and I think if you show any carnivore a video of the inside of a factory farm they will agree. Working to improve the lives of farm animals will encounter very little resistance from even the most vocal carnivore.
I also don't deny that meat production releases methane, and that is not good for the planet. Most carnivores will not have a problem with trying to use technology and new techniques to lower the carbon footprint of farming. For example feeding cows seaweed instead of traditional feed is supposed to cause a net reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
But as soon as you start actively trying to take away my ability to eat meat or my ability to feed my family with meat, then that is where I take offense. i.e. you can show me the facts and let me come to my own conclusion. You can raise awareness, you can put in place regulations for humane treatment of animals, you can implement new technologies to reduce emissions. But if you try to forcibly change my diet, or even _imply_ that someone should forcibly change my diet, that is where I take offense.
Would your opinion be different in the case where your ability to consume meat is hampered by making the price of meat higher so that the negative externalities (i.e the many environmental impacts, treatment of the animals) of its production are truly accounted for?
>I am offended by the implication that someone will forcefully take away
I have heard this sentiment many times and I still find it baffling. Who has actually threatened to take anything away? Some senators I don’t know about? Some director of a government agency that I’ve missed statements from? Who would be in charge of creating and enforcing such a ban? This “those OTHER people are coming for our way of life, and they’re going to take it away” gives me the same impression as the unhinged “white replacement theory” people that just invent an enemy in their heads to get wound up about.
> As soon as you imply that someone’s way of life is immoral and their diet must be forcefully changed, you will encounter huge resistance.
I think this is just due to a lack of understanding or acceptance, because the nature of the problem makes it difficult/impossible to prove (X will lead to Y on date Z). I'm sure there are people who on principle hold personal freedoms above all else, but I think most people could change because they agree with the line of reasoning:
1. My consumption of meat contributes to demand for cows
2. Cows produce methane, which is a potent GHG
3. GHGs are causing global warming
4. Increased global warming is bad for future generations
They just question or fundamentally disagree with one or more of the premises.
Good point. Are you saying that one can agree with all the premises and conclude it will cause hardship to future generations but ultimately don't change behavior because it's part of their core identity?
I'm saying that in the country with the most cows generating GHG very few of those cows would be removed if more people chose to not eat meat.
The real question is (for some reason not framed this way): how many ruminants us humans want to keep around and where? If less than now how fast we need to kill those animals?
Tomorrow we could have 100% of grassland completely devoid of ruminants and other grazing animals, wild or not.
What will really happen to ecosystems and climate if we do this? Do we have a previous point in history where that was the case? Are our models good enough to say it will be 100% positive as we expect?
And I you looks at methane emissions globally ruminants are far from the leading emitters, why not go more intensely after other sources incluing the fossil fuel industry (leaks & all) that are fully man made, non renewable and useless, rather than trying to convince India people to slaughter all their sacred cows instantly?
Wetlands are a large source of methane emissions, should we dry those lands? Same question about ecosystems and full climate impact.
I understand vegan use this as a talking point, but when you look at the big picture there seem to be more reasonable choices and compromises based on data than ruminant extermination.
I am not offended by the facts about factory farming, or that meat production releases methane. I am offended by the implication that someone will forcefully take away my ability to consume foods that I want to eat, and will use morality to justify it. Removing the freedom to eat meat is still taking away freedom no matter how you justify it and people will resent it.
If your goal is to improve the quality of life for livestock or reduce emissions from livestock, perhaps by changing the diet that animals are fed: nobody will have a problem.
As soon as you imply that someone’s way of life is immoral and their diet must be forcefully changed, you will encounter huge resistance.