This thread gets at some part of the crux of the matter - but doesn't illuminate it completely.
As a moral philosopher, Peter Singer would have a hard time being taken seriously were he not vegetarian/vegan: too many people live in this world without consuming animals - and, culturally, there is little to sustain the practice aside from norms (most of which are quite far from any economic defensibility, to say nothing of their non-secular roots). Indeed (per the original posting's conclusion), such a Peter Singer would have a hard time taking himself seriously - because he descends from a long line of moral philosophers (and, indeed, activists) who have all recognized the very same truth - and can see how it manifests in their world. One could suspect folks who align with EA feel much the same, i.e. that being true (perhaps just) to one's own self is the ticket.
This thread gets at some part of the crux of the matter - but doesn't illuminate it completely.
As a moral philosopher, Peter Singer would have a hard time being taken seriously were he not vegetarian/vegan: too many people live in this world without consuming animals - and, culturally, there is little to sustain the practice aside from norms (most of which are quite far from any economic defensibility, to say nothing of their non-secular roots). Indeed (per the original posting's conclusion), such a Peter Singer would have a hard time taking himself seriously - because he descends from a long line of moral philosophers (and, indeed, activists) who have all recognized the very same truth - and can see how it manifests in their world. One could suspect folks who align with EA feel much the same, i.e. that being true (perhaps just) to one's own self is the ticket.