Theists Should Obviously Be Effective Altruists and Vegans

For the standard sort of reasons

In culture broadly, there seems to be a conflict between religious and secular-minded people about various controversial topics. Religious people are more likely to think we’re a nation in decline, that there’s something deeply perverse about modern sexual liberalism, and to have various particular views on social issues. Recently, I’ve become more sympathetic to theism—I’m still agnostic though—but this basically hasn’t threatened any of my core moral convictions—about effective altruism, utilitarianism, veganism, etc.

To be honest, I’m not quite sure where the conflict is supposed to lie. If one is firmly convinced on religious grounds that natural law theory is correct, then perhaps it makes sense for them to oppose gay marriage and abortion. So it makes sense why, if you’re a certain sort of religious person, you’d have views that differ from those of the typical secular person on some topics.

Now, these are not views I hold. I regard natural law theory to be not just wrong but crazy and have no convictions that, even were I to be a theist, would affect my views on abortion, homosexuality, or utilitarianism. Utilitarianism, in fact, seems to be supported by theism, for it’s easier to solve the problem of evil if you don’t think God has any deontic constraints.

But fine, for these I have no difficulty seeing how one’s religious convictions would affect their views on these topics. If you have some (mistaken) religious views, it makes sense that this would affect your views on the above topics. But there are some views—extremely strong opposition to factory farming, support for effective altruism—that are quite popular in my (very secular) circles yet completely unpopular among religious people. And this is, I think, not for any good reason.

There are of course plausible sociological explanations of why so few effective altruists are religious. A lot of them are nerds from the bay area who play DnD, watched new atheist videos when they were teenagers, and read Yudkowsky articles that assume tacitly that religion is ridiculous but do not argue for the view. But it’s curious that so few religious people are drawn to the ideas of effective altruism. There are some, of course—Alex Strasser, Dustin Crummett, the few people who run Christians for Effective Altruism groups. But it’s odd that there aren’t more such people. For the case for effective altruism and veganism are totally unaffected by pretty much all religious convictions.

Right now, somewhere far away, children are dying of horrifying diseases. Unlike most cases of people around the world suffering a terrible fate, we can do something about it. For the cost of a few thousand dollars, one can save someone’s life. What religious convictions on earth could possible render that unimportant? No matter what one’s views on religion are, they should support doing something about children dying in horrifying and brutal ways when one can do so at minimal personal cost.

Religious people are, after all, more charitable than secular people. So then it’s strange that nearly all the people who support very effective charitable giving are secular. It’s unfortunate that so few religious people look hard at whether their charitable giving actually does lots of good! If you’re a religious person reading this, I’d encourage you to do something to change this fact. If the reason why so many EAs are secular is just for odd sociological reasons, then do something about it.

Or take the case for ethical veganism. All of the Abrahamic religions have prohibitions on hurting animals. Proverbs 12:10 says “Whoever is righteous has regard for the life of his beast, but the mercy of the wicked is cruel.” Psalm 145:9 declares “The Lord is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made.” Deuteronomy 22:6-7 says “If you come across a bird's nest in any tree or on the ground, with young ones or eggs and the mother sitting on the young or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young. You shall let the mother go, but the young you may take for yourself, that it may go well with you, and that you may live long.” And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Do these sound like the sentiments of one who would support factory farming? Of one who would favor animals being locked in small, feces-littered cages, unable to turn around, mutilated in unspeakable ways, and then slaughtered, after undergoing a hundred other grotesque torments. The arguments for ethical veganism and effective altruism are utterly straightforward, relying on no contentious premises that should be denied by the religious.

It’s true that, if one is a religious conservative, for example, people that are vegan or effective altruists will be disproportionately those that they dislike, and those that are quite different from them. Vegans and effective altruists are disproportionately secular and liberal. But that’s an utterly terrible reason to be opposed to effective altruism or ethical veganism. The fact that lots of people who adopt some view are annoying or wrong about other things does nothing to challenge the case for the view. The widespread inability to recognize that fact is at the center of why there’s so much irrational dogmatism in the world.

Perhaps, if you think that man was given dominion over the animals, you should think eating animals is permissible. But eating is not the same as torturing. 99% of animals that we eat come from those ghastly factory farms that do things that we would not hesitate to call torture if inflicted on dogs. So even if one thinks it’s permissible to eat an animal that lived a good life, that does nothing to undercut the case against nearly all meat consumption, the case for the overwhelming wrongness of, say, going to McDonalds and ordering a hamburger. As my very religiously conservative Catholic friend James Reilly said:

Confronted with such facts, the proper reaction is something like a mix of horror and remorse, coupled with a deep conviction to contribute in whatever way one can to permanent cessation of such practices. Of course, ours being a fallen species, our reactions are so seldom the proper ones, and thus, despite widespread awareness of the abominable conditions endured on factory farms, the vast majority of well-off Westerners continue to enjoy the flesh, milk, and eggs of the animals tortured there. I am not terribly surprised by this; as I say, we are a fallen species, and I am in no position to judge, being guilty myself of a thousand sins a day. However, I must admit that I am taken aback by the continued prevalence of horrific animal abuse in a nation where nearly two-thirds of the population identifies as Christian.

I would not be so perplexed by this state of affairs were it not for the fact that Christianity has historically been an undeniably potent force for social change. After all, it was Christians who made charity the highest of all virtues, ushering in a revolution in social morality the likes of which had never been seen; it was they who contributed more than anyone else to the end of such barbaric Roman practices as infant exposure, gladiatorial combat, polygamous marriage, and the widespread cultural acceptance of child sexual abuse. It was a Christian bishop and Saint who became the first person in recorded history to call for the complete abolition of slavery, and it was Christian sentiments which would later re-emerge to form the core of the European and American abolitionist movements. In our own time, the pro-life movement which ceaselessly combats the scourge of abortion is made up primarily—though certainly not entirely—of Catholics and Evangelical Protestants. It would therefore seem only natural for the opposition to the widespread torment and mutilation of animals to be led primarily by Christians. But alas, this is not so.

…

This matter is not complex: every year, tens of billions of God’s creatures are maimed and mutilated, tortured and slain, all for the sake of trivial human pleasures. If we cannot bring ourselves to recognize the wrong being done, and to do something—anything—to stop it, then we are indeed a sinful generation.

If one is convinced that 99% of meat consumption is seriously immoral, then they are basically on board with veganism. They agree that in normal circumstances, eating meat is severely morally wrong. Even if there are rare edge cases where they think meat-eating is permissible, they are enough on board to be broadly in the same camp as the vegans.

The arguments for donating to effective charities and the typical wrongness of meat-eating are quite thoroughly overwhelming. It’s thus an unfortunate fact that belief in God seems to lead, almost inexorably, to ignoring those arguments in favor of going along with the dictates of social convention and the status quo.