WeWork Will No Longer Let Employees Expense Any Kind of Meat • Hacker News Board

Re: WeWork Will No Longer Let Employees Expense Any Kind of Meat

#51

Post by curo » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 9:42 PM UTC

maccio92 wrote: post #21

ahelwer wrote: post #12

Nice. If you care at all about moral justifications for your own actions, eating meat is an extremely difficult position to defend. It even falls on the wrong side of the Kantian perfect/imperfect duty divide, since the default really is not eating meat, so eating meat is a positive action which must be justified. I think it's a great example of philosophy pointing out the absurdity of a (very) widely-practiced pheno…

How does that argument extend to animals that eat other animals? And why is the default defined as not eating meat?

Re: why not "animals that eat other animals," the burden of proof here is with meat-eaters (those against killing people at least). There's a special status we afford to ourselves as humans, so why do we so easily accept the privileges of it, but raise objections when it comes with additional moral responsibilities?

As for the default, I think a simple way to put it is, "you don't have to eat meat."

Re: WeWork Will No Longer Let Employees Expense Any Kind of Meat

#52

Post by nodesocket » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 9:42 PM UTC

> that staff will not be able to expense any meals that include poultry, pork or red meat

That is absurd. Imagine the opposite (a company only allowed expensing meat meals) and the amount of blowback, PR nightmare, and internet outrage. The hypocrisy continues.

Re: WeWork Will No Longer Let Employees Expense Any Kind of Meat

#53

Post by VBprogrammer » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 9:43 PM UTC

If a company I worked for introduced that I think my response would be subterfuge. "Hey buddy, I'll have the steak but can you do me a favour and put 2 beetroot and feta tarts on the bill instead."

Re: WeWork Will No Longer Let Employees Expense Any Kind of Meat

#54

Post by mkempe » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 9:43 PM UTC

"The company estimates that the policy will save 445.1m pounds of CO2 emissions ... by 2023." That's 202,000 kt over a 5-year plan.

Global fuel-based emissions in 2015: 36,061,710 kt CO2.

In other words, they think they are so important as to "save" about 0.1% of global CO2 annually just by refusing to include meat in the menu of their own events and employee-expensed meals. I doubt the magnitude of their estimates.

[added] For a sense of scale, WeWork has about 2,000 employees.

Re: WeWork Will No Longer Let Employees Expense Any Kind of Meat

#55

Post by tombert » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 9:43 PM UTC

bg4 wrote: post #28

maccio92 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that argument extend to animals that eat other animals? And why is the default defined as not eating meat?

Apparently lions, tigers and bears aren't aware of the Kantian perfect/imperfect duty divide.

I don't know that I fully agree with the parent's logic (despite the fact that I actually am a vegetarian), but I think the rationale to his argument is that humans are able to survive without meat (unlike cats, lions, or tigers), and we also have the ability to realize that we are able to avoid meat. Cats, bears, and tigers really don't have the mental faculties to know good or bad, or right and wrong, but we do (at least to some extent). If that's the case, shouldn't we avoid killing wherever possible?

Again, not sure I completely agree with the line of reasoning, but I at least see the point.

Re: WeWork Will No Longer Let Employees Expense Any Kind of Meat

#56

Post by wu-ikkyu » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 9:43 PM UTC

ahelwer wrote: post #34

brogrammer5 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this ladies and gentlemen is why vegans have a reputation for being annoying.

The annoyance is fascinating to me, because I grew up eating meat and also felt such annoyance. It's an interesting thread to pull if you're into knowing thyself - why do I feel especially aggravated on this topic? Might lead you somewhere.

>why do I feel especially aggravated on this topic? Might lead you somewhere.

For the same reason a homosexual is annoyed by other people preaching to them that their actions are immoral and against nature.

Re: WeWork Will No Longer Let Employees Expense Any Kind of Meat

#57

Post by CodeTheInternet » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 9:43 PM UTC

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #35

ahelwer wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We usually divide the world into moral agents (pretty much just humans) and non-moral-agents. The default is not eating meat because the default is not eating anything . Humans must take a positive action to eat something. Generally perfect duties in the Kantian sense take the form of "thou shalt-nots", so a positive action you shouldn't take, like killing a random stranger or some such. This is contrasted with imper…

>The default is not eating meat because the default is not eating anything. That's default for rocks and such, but not living things, whose existence requires by default the death of other living things

I'm a solitarian. I use photosynthesis.

Re: WeWork Will No Longer Let Employees Expense Any Kind of Meat

#58

Post by donutte » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 9:45 PM UTC

maccio92 wrote: post #21

ahelwer wrote: post #12

Nice. If you care at all about moral justifications for your own actions, eating meat is an extremely difficult position to defend. It even falls on the wrong side of the Kantian perfect/imperfect duty divide, since the default really is not eating meat, so eating meat is a positive action which must be justified. I think it's a great example of philosophy pointing out the absurdity of a (very) widely-practiced pheno…

How does that argument extend to animals that eat other animals? And why is the default defined as not eating meat?

Should it?

If I argue that it’s immoral to not vaccinate your children, am I failing in not arguing that wild deer should vaccinate their children?

Re: WeWork Will No Longer Let Employees Expense Any Kind of Meat

#59

Post by CodeTheInternet » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 9:45 PM UTC

stephengillie wrote: post #16

Odd to see this paragraph in the middle - it has no relation to anything else in the article, and the 2 points don't relate to each other - beyond the theme of companies banning things: > American Airlines Group Inc. and Starbucks Corp. recently joined the chorus of companies pledging to phase out plastic straws and drink stirrers. And Southwest Airlines Co., in a bid to reduce allergy risk, said this week peanuts wi…

I think they meant AA and *$ are looking to help the environemt.

Re: WeWork Will No Longer Let Employees Expense Any Kind of Meat

#60

Post by ahelwer » Fri, Jul 13, 2018, 9:45 PM UTC

christofosho wrote: post #49

ahelwer wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We usually divide the world into moral agents (pretty much just humans) and non-moral-agents. The default is not eating meat because the default is not eating anything . Humans must take a positive action to eat something. Generally perfect duties in the Kantian sense take the form of "thou shalt-nots", so a positive action you shouldn't take, like killing a random stranger or some such. This is contrasted with imper…

Couldn't this be extended to plant life as well?

It could, and indeed there are people who hold this belief. They are called "Fruititarians" and only eat things which can be taken from the plant without killing or harming it, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruitarianism

I don't personally subscribe to this.