Home / J. Practicality, economy and society / Part IND
"I eat little meat; that's enough."
eating less meat is better than eating more, and it deserves recognition. But cutting down doesn't justify what remains: if causing an animal's death without need is wrong, doing it less often is less wrong, not right. Cutting down can be an excellent path, as long as it's a path and not a destination.
Short answer
Eating less meat is good, and it deserves recognition: fewer animals die. But if killing an animal without need is wrong, doing it less often is less wrong, not right. Cutting down works very well as a path. The problem is when it becomes the destination and a justification for what remains. For every meal that still has meat, the question is the same.
For children
Hurting someone less often is better than hurting them a lot. But the best thing is not to hurt them. Eating less meat already helps animals, and it's a good start. The next step can be gradually swapping the meals that still have meat.
"If cutting down was good for the animals, why stop at cutting down?"
Como pode aparecer
"I only eat meat on weekends."
"I do Meatless Monday."
"I'm flexitarian."
"I've already cut down; spare me the radicalism."
"Reduction is more effective than abstention at population scale."
"Everything in moderation." (which is E5)
The strongest version
"I only eat meat on weekends. I do Meatless Monday. I'm flexitarian."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Reducing meat consumption reduces the number of animals killed and the environmental harm.
- P2A large reduction by many people can have more impact than total abstention by a few.
- P3Demanding total abstention puts people off.
- CSo eating little meat is enough.
P1 is true. So is P2, in terms of aggregate impact. P3 has some strategic support. The problem lies in the conclusion: that reducing is good doesn't make the rest justified.
The argument is valid as a strategic argument. It fails as a moral justification of what remains.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument mixes two kinds of claim:
Claim Type Status Cutting down is better than not cutting down Comparative True Cutting down is enough Normative Doesn't follow from the first - b
Where the argument breaks
1. Better isn't enough.
That an action reduces a harm doesn't mean the remaining harm is acceptable.
2. The question applies to every meal.
Each animal killed for a remaining meal has the same interest in living as the animals spared.
3. It's moral licensing.
Having done something good can make one feel entitled not to do more (E6).
4. Strategy doesn't change ethics.
It may be good to encourage reduction as a communication strategy, but that doesn't make what remains morally neutral.
5. Cutting down already shows it's possible.
Whoever manages days without meat has already shown that meat isn't necessary.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Our World in Data, less meat or sustainable meat Eating less meat almost always cuts emissions more than switching to "sustainable" meat Shows the real value of cutting down Kagan, *Do I Make a Difference?* (2011) Each meat purchase has a real expected effect on production Shows that remaining consumption counts too - d
The strongest counter-reply: the perfect is the enemy of the good
The most serious version says that insisting on total abstention can discourage people who are cutting down, and that it's better to celebrate reduction than to criticize it.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Celebrating isn't closing the matter.
It's possible to recognize progress and invite the next step.
The criticism is of the argument, not the person.
"That's enough" is a conclusion, and it can be discussed respectfully.
Cutting down is the most common path to veganism.
Many vegans started by cutting down.
- f
Back to the moral question
Cutting down implicitly recognizes that eating animals has a moral cost. If it does, the question doesn't disappear with the reduction: it still applies to every animal still on the plate.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
From comparative to sufficient
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Moral licensing
False middle ground
Biases
Moral licensing
The good deed seems to make up for the rest
Literature on moral licensing
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if I've reduced a harm, what remains is acceptable".
If it applied to…Drink-drivingTap to see
Doing it only on weekends would be acceptable
No one accepts this
If it applied to…LyingTap to see
Lying less would be enough
No one concludes this
If it applied to…Cruelty to animalsTap to see
Mistreating them only sometimes would be acceptable
No one accepts this
Contradictions
And therefore that eating meat has a cost.
For most meals.
Such as mistreating animals "only now and then".
What the argument gets right
What is true
Cutting down on meat is a real change, which spares animals and reduces environmental harm. Those who have cut down have done something valuable, and it's fair to recognize it. Strategically, encouraging reduction can reach many people.
But
But cutting down is a path, not a place to stop. The same reason that led to the reduction applies to what's still on the plate.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after