Is your moral uncertainty considerable? What are your credences across moral views? It seems like if your credence in non-utilitarian views is very low, then small amounts of additional offsetting would overcome even large harms multiplied by the tiny chance that other moral views are true.
Also, are we sure that we want to make people very, very uncomfortable eating meat? Wouldn't that be bad from a net utility perspective, if everyone were suddenly much more troubled by their food and having to find new foods they liked while they switched to food they didn't? And wouldn't that only be effective once a meaningful majority of people switched to veganism, which probably won't happen in the near term (and is more likely to be swamped by artificial meat then changing people's attitudes)? It seems like empathy for animals could be very bad unless it's action-causing and that action is effective. Plus, people resist the idea that they're participating in an evil system, but feel good about giving to charity. Wouldn't campaigns to get people to donate to animal charities be far more likely to be effective than the two?
Also are you saying donating $100 dollars once is enough for your entire life?
Is your moral uncertainty considerable? What are your credences across moral views? It seems like if your credence in non-utilitarian views is very low, then small amounts of additional offsetting would overcome even large harms multiplied by the tiny chance that other moral views are true.
Also, are we sure that we want to make people very, very uncomfortable eating meat? Wouldn't that be bad from a net utility perspective, if everyone were suddenly much more troubled by their food and having to find new foods they liked while they switched to food they didn't? And wouldn't that only be effective once a meaningful majority of people switched to veganism, which probably won't happen in the near term (and is more likely to be swamped by artificial meat then changing people's attitudes)? It seems like empathy for animals could be very bad unless it's action-causing and that action is effective. Plus, people resist the idea that they're participating in an evil system, but feel good about giving to charity. Wouldn't campaigns to get people to donate to animal charities be far more likely to be effective than the two?