Tastitarianism

Few people these days are completely unsympathetic to the welfare of farm animals. Animal agriculture is acknowledged to create significant amounts of suffering, and its most intensive forms is widely seen to be at least somewhat immoral.

So why aren’t more people vegetarian? To some extent, people think that it is morally permissible to eat meat. But to a surprisingly large extent, people just can't bring themselves to do anything about it, whether or not they think it is morally ok.

People tend to cite three key reasons to explain why they continue to eat meat in the face of the suffering that is involved:

1. Meat is tastier than vegetarian alternatives.
2. Meat is healthier than vegetarian alternatives.
3. Meat is more convenient than vegetarian alternatives.

If vegetarian alternatives were recognized to be equally tasty, healthy, and convenient, many more people would surely be willing to go vegetarian.

What is interesting about this is that there is a strict dichotomy between those who eat meat and those who don’t. Those who eat meat generally don’t put any consideration into the welfare of animals when making dietary choices. They might refuse to eat something especially questionable, like veal or foie gras, but once a given kind of meat is taken as an option, the welfare of animals gets no more consideration. (Vegetarians too, typically avoid thinking through particular cases in favor of some blanket prohibition. Its easier to live by exceptionless rules.)

What makes this interesting is that the morality of eating meat surely differs a lot between cases. It differs, for instance, in terms of

1. The quality of life of the animals.
2. The amount of time that the animals lived.
3. The capacity for suffering of the animals.
4. The amount of meat provided by the animals.

Very few people put much thought into these questions, but they have a great deal of bearing on the morality of an everyday activity.

Furthermore, the tradeoffs that one faces when choosing a vegetarian dish can differ greatly in terms of

1. Their taste
2. Their healthiness
3. Their convenience

A a result, I propose the following as an option that many more people should take with their diets: Tastitarianism. Insofar as there is a vegetarian option which is not significantly less tasty, healthy, or convenient, choose the vegetarian option. Insofar as one has multiple non-vegetarian options that are not significantly less tasty, healthy, or convenient than each other. Choose the non-vegetarian option that is most likely to involve the least suffering.

For instance, suppose that you were trying to decide between getting sausage on your pizza and getting olives, and you’re more or less indifferent between the two. A tastitarian would get the olives. Or suppose you’re trying to decide between getting sausage and getting meatballs. A tastitarian might reason that a cow produces more beef than a pig does sausage for the same amount of suffering, and opt for the meatballs.

Tastitarianism would involve a rather significant change in the diets of many people, but it is deisgned to have little impact on their well-being. If people were rational and cared about morality and thought that animal agriculture was regrettable, then if they weren’t willing to go vegetarian, they should at least go tastitarian.