Question

Respond to the 'inefficacy objection':

Imagine this scenario, you want to stop companies from making meat, so you tell people to stop buying meat. Someone says "everyone else is buying meat so me not buying meat won't do anything".

How would you convince him to stop buying meat?

Answer 1

What my class thought of:

1. "Expected Utility", basically talking about probability and by not eating meat you save an 'average' chicken or something.

2. Not eating meat is unlikely to change anything but if it does change, it's a greater benefit. Kinda like the lottery.

Is there any better arguments? xd

Answer 2

Because if everyone subscribes to that belief, then it will never occur. That is a decent place to start. You would develop the argument with the reasons for ending meat consumption being the overall health of the planet and its people (global warming as cows poop -> methane, resource shortages, and some meat is unhealthy for you *cough* @AP )

Answer 3

Essentially, personal responsibility. The onus is on you, as a benefactor of the planet, to help it.

Answer 4

Whilst also helping yourself.

Answer 5

In my opinion, it can be quite convincing when done well.

Answer 6

I'm to assume that giving up meat won't help myself.
My class did a game-theory thing on this too.

Basically either choose to get candy, or give up your candy and hope that 10 other people gives up their candy as well to get a delicious treat.

Answer 7

My teacher said "Only the 9th person giving up his candy will really count, everyone else has no significance. You being the 9th person is unlikely so don't give up your candy."

Answer 8

This is some deep philosophical dealing with self interest and inherent good/evil.

Answer 9

Let me finish this survey thing first, then I can develop a better response...

Answer 10

I think it's easier to sell people to a cause than it is to numbers. Probability and saving an average chicken sounds insincere. The lottery is plagued by the truth of it being pure luck. Not a great way to convince someone.

Having to assume that not giving up meat does hurt the personable argument I am proposing, but I think there is still room. I assume that there is some good within all people, and I seek to have them subscribe to the common good of the Earth. You support common good with the cruelty of animal factories, and can frame it as profit on the tears of animals.There are also several inhumane practices for the farming of animals (if you recall, that cute activist girl I showed you, link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7_fN7LFJZk ).

I am personally exploring some lectures and debates on altruism and self-interest as objective and subjective values, and which is better, so this is an interesting thought for me, but it more so relates specifically to economics.

In this case, you can find an easy workaround of influencing people by starting a framework of 'collective human beings' and associating them with that collective, and then just direct the various issues that I mentioned, at that collective. This seeks to work around this: 'I'm to assume that giving up meat won't help myself."

Answer 11

Again, I don't think the statistical or luck based arguments are effective. But everyone adheres to self worth and their own moral character. If you tap into that, you can change minds.