5 Comments

I think (1) is unlikely and that’s the weak point. Applying the NAP to animals would have outlandish implications in my view. That seems hard to imagine.

Expand full comment
author

Yeah, I agree that premise (1) is the shakiest. But it occurs to me that its truth is an empirical question that financial analysts and higher ups in the meat industry could answer for us. At the very least it's not obvious to me that (1) is false.

Expand full comment

That’s fair and worth exploring

Expand full comment
author

Thought of another argument. Even if (1) the way I formulated it is debatable, we could replace it with (1*) which specifies P steals the meat he eats, assuming he’s confident he can get away with it. Either the same animals get slaughtered or, if anything, by eating into the meat industry’s profit margins it could result in a long-term decrease in animals slaughtered; but no way does eating stolen meat result in more animals slaughtered. The utility calculation definitely goes through with (1*).

Expand full comment

I've met people who would consume animal products if it was a gift. For example, he ate cheese pizza that was left over. If I steal, seems like people who go to the store and find there wasn't enough meat, and they would incease demand. But I guess the price would go up and it would be less profitable and demanded? Interesting idea

Expand full comment