Against Inefficacy Objections: the Real Economic Impact of Individual Consumer Choices on Animal Agriculture

Abstract

When consumers choose to abstain from purchasing meat, they face some uncertainty about whether their decisions will have an impact on the number of animals raised and killed. Consequentialists have argued that this uncertainty should not dissuade consumers from a vegetarian diet because the "expected" impact, or average impact, will be predictable. Recently, however, critics have argued that the expected marginal impact of a consumer change is likely to be much smaller or more radically unpredictable than previously thought. This objection to the consequentialist case for vegetarianism is known as the "causal inefficacy" (or "causal impotence") objection. In this paper, we argue that the inefficacy objection fails. First, we summarize the contours of the objection and the standard "expected impact" response to it. Second, we examine and rebut two contemporary attempts (by Mark Budolfson and Ted Warfield) to defeat the expected impact reply through alleged demonstrations of the inefficacy of abstaining from meat consumption. Third, we argue that there are good reasons to believe that single individual consumers-not just individual consumers taken as an aggregate-really do make a positive difference when they choose to abstain from meat consumption. Our case rests on three economic observations: (i) animal producers operate in a highly competitive environment, (ii) complex supply chains efficiently communicate some information about product demand, and (iii) consumers of plant-based meat alternatives have positive consumption spillover effects on other consumers.

Why Buy Local?

“….have positive consumption spillover effects on other consumers', then 'there are good reasons to believe that single individual consumersnot just consumers in aggregatereally do make a positive difference'. 40 These three factors seem to be present beyond the context of meat production in the global food economy more generally. In the context of the locavore debate, the impotence objection is not very convincing.…”

Consequentialism, Collective Action, and Blame

“…But, still, it seems reasonable to believe that across different decision domains, there can be significant uncertainty about whether or where thresholds might lie. If I go to an 'eat local' restaurant, I might have to do a different calculation about thresholds than in a big supermarket chain (McMullen & Halteman 2019). I cannot just extrapolate across food environments.…”

Indeterminacy and impotence

“…On the second set of assumptions: demand shifts in meat at the supermarket or in restaurants kick off a long chain of production responses, affecting nothing so straightforward or direct as meat supply (Budolfson, 2019 ; McMullen & Halteman, 2019 ). Though consumption of beef at one store may go down, and consequently the price for select cuts of beef at that store may follow shortly thereafter, such shifts in consumption and price do not necessarily mean that fewer cattle will be raised or that they will sell for less at the feedlot.…”

“…Though recently there have been some fairly sophisticated criticisms of consequentialist justifications for vegetarianism (Budolfson, 2012 , 2015 , 2019 ; Chignell, 2015 ; Nefsky, 2018 ; Warfield, 2015 ), many in the ethics literature nevertheless continue to argue that consequentialist moral reasoning still applies despite the causal indeterminacy objections rooted in market logic (McMullen & Halteman, 2019 ; Nefsky, 2019 ). Excellent though the commentaries in this area are, they frequently neglect to properly understand the nature of the impotence that characterizes these markets, framing them as more traditional inefficacy or overdetermination objections.…”