Best arguments against veganism
Even when you’re right, it is good to be familiar with potential weak spots in your worldview. After all, the bigger they are, the louder they fall. This is true when it comes to our beliefs or values too. Should we not allow even for the thought of being a little wrong, we’ll fail to explore different views and the fall won’t be very pleasant if proven to be mistaken. Not to mention the risk of our well-intended actions proving to actually harm others. This openness to different points of view needs to be balanced with a reasonable consistency in our values, but where to draw the line or what those values should be is for each one of us to decide. Here we will just look at the most important arguments against veganism and see whether they shake the foundations of this worldview.
Naturally, vegans are faced with a lot of bad, silly, disrespectful or unintendedly self-defeating takes. That is why I made a list for those here and here. But what do I mean by good arguments? Now, veganism is a moral position, so then a good argument against it has to either 1) be a morally better alternative or 2) prove veganism is too demanding of an ethical stance. Since the moral argument is simple (humans have good reasons to be nicer to animals), a lot of arguments focus on the second issue, that of practicability.
Contents:
Not-so-casual impotence
Moral choices are not always easy
If true, there would be trouble
The social issue
Conclusion
Not-so-casual impotence
Argument: Veganism is defeated by the . It cannot save all animals and
Response: If true, this argument does not necessarily invalidate veganism but proves we live in a bullshit world, where even if we are aware of the needless and immoral suffering animals are subjected to, we cannot help them. The vegan choice then is still preferable to the current situation, but the maximum goal (of ending all forms of animal exploitation) may well be unattainable while less ambitious goals are within reach.
Discussion: This is both one of the best and worst arguments against veganism. Best because it may well be true. Worst because, if true, it means we truly live in a bullshit world and Schopenhauer was . Or that David Benatar . Or that George Carlin . And who would want these guys to be right?
Furthermore, it is one of the worst because that is how generally humans do things, by coming together and getting stuff done. Sometimes by necessity, other times by common agreement or, unfortunately, sometimes by being fooled/forced. Unsurprisingly, vegans choose the second, and most difficult option. But that’s because it is fundamentally a moral view about fairness and reducing suffering, so really there is no other choice but the second.
The argument though, is good because it reminds us that indeed we can achieve little without support from others, especially when the others do not want to help us. Case in point, people telling vegans they won’t make a difference, actually make a difference themselves. A difference for the worse, to be clear.
[Note: reddit user respond to the casual impotence objection is to move from general to particular, that is, you are responsible for the animals killed or exploited by or for you. ‘Unless you’re a world leader, there is no other issue where you personally have more power.’]
What are vegans doing in response to this? Their best. They are doing their best.
Moral choices are not always easy
Argument: Veganism is restrictive.
Response: This argument against veganism is plainly true. Vegans eat plant food and refuse animal food. Unless there is a life-and-death situation, a vegan will not eat animal products, ride animals, buy clothes made from animals, visit a zoo or somehow else harm animals. That is just how morality works: by deeming some actions preferable to others, i.e., restricting actions in some directions but letting overflow in others. In other words, this is a feature, not a bug.
Now, what we want from a good moral system is to strike a fine balance so that it does not become over-restrictive or, conversely, useless. For example, some Christians think that believers should limit almost all sexual thoughts and activities, procreation being allowed as an exception for those who cannot control their desires and focus solely on spiritual matters. This is an example of an over-restrictive code of conduct that, unsurprisingly, is usually not respected, and when over-enforced, it leads to a lot of easily preventable suffering. An example in the opposite direction is the idea that everything in the universe is morally important in the same way. This idea is so broad that it becomes quite useless, since it is highly unlikely that a rock cares about its own well-being in the same way a human or tapir does.
Where does veganism stand? It clearly delineates who has moral importance: beings that are sentient. It is also reasonably easy to practice by a majority of the human population, though there are both natural and artificial restrictions. We do not live in an ideal world. Many people do not have the material means to live the lifestyle they’d prefer best; they do not have enough vegan choices in their area or live in places with ideal conditions for plant agriculture, but the products are used to feed animals instead of becoming food for humans. To this, you have the people complaining about veganism being restrictive while actively helping make it seem so: buying animal products when they have other options, bullying and discouraging people curious about veganism, voting against animal-friendly policies.
What to do in this case? Our best! Those who can be vegan should. People who cannot, for whatever reason, have very good reasons to consider other ways to reduce the harm they inflict upon animals: vegetarianism, pescatarianism, freeganism, buying animal products from trustworthy sources, advocating and voting for the better treatment of animals in farms etc.
If true, there would be trouble
Here I want to talk about some matters that would really put the nail in the coffin of veganism if true. Fortunately, none of these are true or, at least, in any substantial way proved or verifiable, but it is important to recognise that if true, they would effectively render veganism a very bad choice!
Argument: A vegan lifestyle is not healthy for humans.
Response: Fortunately, to conclude that a fully animal-free diet is healthy for humans, though, depending on the place one lives or personal matters, it often is less convenient than more prevalent omnivore choices. What does a plant-based diet consist of? Veggies, mushrooms, algae, grains, nuts, seeds, legumes, fruits, etc. All of these can be combined in an endless variety of dishes that offer all the goodness our bodies need and the knowledge that we do our best not to harm others.
Argument: My religion mandates or allows eating meat.
Response: Such remarks, unfortunately, are mostly used as a way to shut down conversation. Instead of a chance to discover different religious approaches to the question of animal wellbeing, what we get is people who know that it is either taboo or dangerous to openly discuss religious norms, so they are conveniently ruining a good conversation with the classic, ‘my religion says this.’ But the history of religious thought and the various ways it treated animal well-being is fascinating and ought to be explored. Now, whether or not it is a good idea to base our moral reasoning on religious precepts, that is a different question. What we have is people, often in the same religion, who are kind to animals and others who disregard animal well-being.
Of course, should God exist and favour meat consumption, then veganism would be not just wrong but even against God’s will. We can already see how much harm such an idea brings, simply because people who firmly believe that God favours meat-eating are, well, going about breeding and killing animals. However, in my experience, I find that the more profoundly one studies the great religions, the more they find a message of compassion, respect and love even for other animals, not just for humans. So that people who use religion as a justification for harming others mainly do just what they want to but use spirituality as an excuse. This, of course, also harms the religions they claim to be part of, as they become associated with violence instead of love.
Argument: Animals have no moral standing.
Response: This idea usually involves the claim that humans have some relevant attribute that makes them the only beings with a moral status. It can be intelligence, the belonging to the human species or
The big problem with such claims is that they seem to miss the point: we do not talk about moral matters just for fun or to show smart we are. Morality is needed to solve some very practical problems: how to relate to each other, how to reduce suffering, how to prevent humans from doing really bad things. Not including animals in a moral system is simply a flaw and it is often intentional. Just in the same way did not include women or people with different skin colours in their moral systems: they usually knew very well what they were doing.
So then, how do we solve this issue? There are many ways. We can recognize that humans are moral actors while animals just moral patients (that is, not responsible for their actions but important enough for their wellbeing to matter). We can and should discuss just what kind of moral obligations follow from the fact that animals matter and to what degree are we responsible not to harm them. Finally, while in pain we are similar, a big difference between us and animals is precisely that we can make moral judgements and have discussions on the matter.
Claim: I can’t be vegan because of my culture.
Response: This is a good argument because it is true. It is simply quite a lot to expect of people to go against the culture they live in.
See what I did there? I fell victim to the idea that veganism would be something foreign or even adversarial to our cultures. While we have to recognise the strength of this argument, in that culture is a weighty factor for the choices many people make, we also have to acknowledge the weaknesses of the argument: 1) that culture changes over time and 2) that individual choice is still possible.
Now, of course, people do live in communities that persecute those deemed different or belong to toxic groups where being vegan is seen as weakness and hence punished with social exclusion, mock and ridicule. I believe no decent person will use this state of things in order to endorse cruel practices towards humans or animals. Rather, this argument is a good one because we can always expect toxic cultures to appear — that is just something humans do. But just how toxic cultural trends come and go, so do kind ones. Whenever we can choose, let us choose the kinder ones.
The social issue
An argument usually not voiced out loud: if I go vegan, I’ll lose my friends or be excluded from my community.
Response: This is true: safety first. Vegans are aware of this but usually argue the struggle is worth it in order to live in a way that does not unnecessarily harm animals.
The most difficult part of my veganism has been dealing with awkward social situations. By this I mean: telling friends to stop making rude jokes; assuring my mom I do not disrespect the way she raised me just because I stopped eating meat; staying calm when a guy in the pub looks into my eyes and tells me, ‘I want to kill all vegans!’; listening to my people ranting for 20 minutes about how inconvenient veganism is when going out to a restaurant they chose knowing well it had no options for me; managing disrespectful jokes and bullying attempts from my work colleagues.
Being a man, it is not easy to recognise all this. That is because in many parts of Europe, simply being a vegan is considered weakness, and pointing out that I am being treated unfairly will be further proof of weakness. But I expected something like that before going vegan, because I was one of those making fun of vegans in the past. How the wheel turns, right? No wonder then that peer pressure and pride are some of the main reasons people give up being vegan. After all, ‘being vegan in an overwhelmingly carnist world is a stressful social struggle that many are unable to sustain.’ (.)
Fortunately, my friends accepted the change and most of them stopped with the obnoxious jokes after a while. No one physically bullied me because of my veganism, but this is a privilege many children or teenagers do not have. I had a manager who was very disrespectful towards vegans, to the point of aggressivity but, other than that, the worst I had to face at work were ‘jokes’ such as, ‘Oh, you’re vegan. I will wash my hands after shaking yours’. or ‘So you’re vegan. I will never let my children touch you.’ or ‘I judge you! A real man does not eat grass but meat!’
*
Kenneth Diao talks : aggression by non-vegans; structural (we live in villages and cities designed to be non-vegan) and having to ‘bear the psychological burden of veganism in isolation.’ What is the psychological burden? Quoting: ‘When I first consciously confronted the problem of eating meat, I felt a deep sense of horror. We tormented and slaughtered so many more animals than I’d ever thought possible. I alone had contributed to thousands of gruesome murders, and so had my closest friends and family. Yet there was never a place for this to be recognized, validated, and released. Everyone else acted like this was normal, and some people (ahem, family members) acted like I was the crazy or weird one.’
All this means that many people who’d otherwise be vegan, vegetarian or at least care about animals more choose not to after quite a brutal calculation: they do not want to lose social relations, face off bullies or disappoint their families. In my experience, most non-vegans turn out to be simply nice people who may have been disrespectful just because of carelessness. Now, this does not change the fact that there are many assholes who enjoy bullying vegans or the psychological burden some vegans face due to manifold alienation. This is, honestly, a sad state of affairs. Vegans recognise the many-faced forms of and stereotyping against them. Hence, they support each other on forums and media .
Conclusion
Veganism is a sound moral choice, but it is not always the easiest one in practice. Moreover, it makes one conscious about animal suffering, something the majority of people ignore, do not care about or actively bring more to the world. This can lead to feelings of alienation, and even discouragement.
Furthermore, while the number of vegans grows, the numbers of animals in factory-farms also increase year by year, which is a very humbling piece of knowledge. Despite the best efforts from animal rights activists and the vegan community, the moral ideas of veganism are still not commonly accepted. While many countries nowadays, such as India or Poland, do cater well to the needs of vegetarians, for vegans the situation is usually trickier.
Moral choices are not always easy, but that is just how the world is. Vegans and animal rights activists are, however, constantly working towards easing the choice: more and more animal-free products are invented; the plant-based cuisine is an ever-growing mountain of treasures; there are online and offline support groups; due to global warming and species loss, more people become interested in the ethics of agriculture or our treatment of animals.
Currently, our treatment of animals is simply a moral disaster and it is up to every one of us to do their part and change things. Humour may or may not help the change, but at least will make our lives better. So let us check out some less serious articles about arguments against veganism.
Also, you can check out my list of the worst arguments against veganism (part I and part II).
Bonus meme!
You can send your feedback, questions or opinion about the article to the email address [email protected], on or .
