Business as usual/vegan world: Combating the ‘all or nothing’ attitude

Often in class discussion, people have expressed concern over what Singer and Mason think is required of consumers, either because they are not convinced by their arguments, or because they believe that realizing such a state of affairs is not possible. Do the authors envision “a vegan world”? Having now finished the book, it seems that they do, but at the same time they don’t: many of their arguments lead to the conclusion that eating animal products is in most scenarios indefensible, but they also spend considerable time discussing ‘ethical meat consumption’. I will address the difficulties facing ‘conscientious omnivores’ in the world today, the nature of moral obligations, and the authors’ treatment of these issues. Upon considering these things, we can see that the authors are battling an ‘all or nothing’ attitude about food choices.

One of the most troubling issues addressed in this book is the lack of transparency in the food industry. Factory farms often make information relating to their methods of food production completely impossible to obtain. This may involve misrepresenting their products, whether it be through meaningless labels such as ‘farm fresh’, easily obtained and largely uninformative certifications such as ‘cage free’, or straightforward lies such as ‘fresh caught’ applying to farmed fish. Considering this, it may be more difficult to consistently find products that are truly sustainably produced and cruelty free than it is to find vegan products.

So, what should we do? If one is unconvinced that eating meat is wrong, but agrees with the authors’ other arguments, one is at least obligated to take on this daunting task of intensely researching all of their food purchases. This will be extremely challenging and time consuming and one might instead choose to simply eliminate animal products from their diet altogether. Making a related point, Singer and Mason write, “Since we are often tempted to take the easy way out, drawing a clear line against eating animal products may be the best way to ensure that one eats ethically—and sticks to it” (257). So, if you’re convinced by their arguments, you should become a vegan. If you’re convinced by most but not all of their arguments, you should still probably become a vegan.

However, Singer and Mason’s project is one of providing their readers with information and relevant arguments. Then, allowing for the possibility that some readers will remain unconvinced, they offer a variety of practical advice on how to choose food appropriately. This is why they write, “The choice is not between business as usual and a vegan world” (245).This misconception, which we might call an ‘all or nothing’ attitude, seems to be one of the greatest obstacles for convincing people to make ethical food choices. Of course, one should not feel that making an ethical mistake is the end of the world, even if it is done knowingly. The person who occasionally makes compromises is not a “moral monster”, but the person who attempts to justify moral apathy is truly doing something wrong. This is the attitude which the authors hope to battle against.

Quite rightly, the authors conclude their book with a discussion of what is to be expected of consumers and a reminder that “it is important to avoid the mistake of thinking that if you have ethical reasons for doing something, you have to do it all the time” (281). In light of the serious problem of the ‘all or nothing’ moral attitude, the authors’ rhetorical strategy (while not necessarily reflecting the demanding nature of moral obligations) seems to be a very good one. This rhetorical strategy is more instrumentally successful than the alternative of relentlessly supporting their more demanding argument that everyone should have a vegan diet. The larger argument in The Ethics of What We Eat, which I consider to be overwhelmingly successful, is the simple fact that “our food choices matter”.