Proponents of the utilitarian animal welfare argument (AWA) for veganism maintain that it is reasonable to expect that adopting a vegan diet will decrease animal suffering. In this paper I argue otherwise. I maintain that (i) there are plausible scenarios in which refraining from meat-consumption will not decrease animal suffering; (ii) the utilitarian AWA rests on a false dilemma; and (iii) there are no reasonable grounds for the expectation that adopting a vegan diet will decrease animal suffering. The paper is (...) divided into four sections. In the first, I set out the utilitarian AWA in its original form. I give some background and I distinguish it from other, related arguments. In the second, I discuss the causal impotence objection, a popular objection to the utilitarian AWA. I explain how the objection works by means of a conceptual distinction between consumers and producers. In the third, I explain how proponents of the utilitarian AWA respond to this objection. In particular, I set out in some detail what I call the expected utility response. In the fourth and final section, I use the three objections noted above to explain why I do not find this response convincing. (shrink)

Tieteen yhteiskunnallisen vaikuttavuuden käsite on nykyään kohtuuttoman kapea. Tilanne on hermeneuttisesti epäoikeudenmukainen: etenkin humanistisen tutkimuksen yhteiskunnallinen vaikuttavuus jää näkymättömiin, koska käytettävä vaikuttavuuden käsite ei kata sitä. Tämä hapertaa jopa humanististen alojen itseymmärrystä. Humanistinen tutkimus vaikuttaa kuitenkin konkreettisin tavoin siihen, keitä olemme.