The debate between animal rights and animal welfare is one that has been a dividing line for activists for decades. It is often argued by those who consume animal products, and even many who don’t, that advocating for animal welfare reforms is more realistic, and therefore more effective, than advocating for the complete abolition of animal…Continue reading Animal Rights vs Animal Welfare
Below is a short list of foods which I think should be in the basket of every new vegan when they go on that first vegan shopping trip. Prices will vary according to location, but in the vast majority of places these foods will be some of the cheapest items in any supermarket. You can…Continue reading Cheap Vegan Groceries
Even if true, this argument would not function as an adequate defence for eating animals. Nevertheless, it is used surprisingly often in this context. The argument holds that veganism as a worldview only cares about the rights of animals and excludes humans from its ethical considerations, and as such is inherently flawed.
This argument claims that since there is not enough land or water for the whole world to go vegan, going vegan is in some way pointless, impractical or even harmful. This in turn is used as a justification for consuming animals since doing otherwise would be unsustainable or a waste of resources. This argument is…Continue reading “There isn’t Enough Land/Water For Everyone Go Vegan.”
This argument is often used as a justification for continuing to support animal agriculture, and so for continuing to consume animal products. By boycotting animal products, it is argued, we are taking away the jobs of farmers and potentially putting the whole economy at risk, since it relies so heavily on animal agriculture.
The idea that humans are more important than animals is fairly frequently heard in defence of the consumption of animals. The argument holds that since humans are somehow inherently more important than animals, this means that eating them is perfectly justified. Often those making this argument do not specify in what precise way humans are more…Continue reading “Humans Are More Important Than Animals.”
The argument from religion or “divine law” holds that because God made animals for human consumption, it is morally justified to eat them. These arguments usually come from followers of the classical monotheistic religions, so this response will be focused on answering the claim as argued an Abrahamic perspective, that being the perspective of mainstream Islam,…Continue reading “God Made Animals to be Eaten.”
These are separate arguments that are often simultaneously held to be true by the same individuals, failing to realise they if either one were true they would be mutually exclusive. These arguments imply that it is acceptable to eat animals because it is the lesser of two evils; that if we did not eat them…Continue reading “If We Didn’t Eat Animals They Would Overpopulate/Go Extinct.”
This argument centres on the idea that animal exploitation is so vast, so widespread, that one person deciding not to consume animal products will make no real difference to how many animals are killed.
This is a fairly commonly used argument which puts forward the idea that since no one can be 100% vegan, vegans are hypocrites, and attempting to be vegan is in some way pointless. This argument is actually built on a tu quoque fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that an argument is wrong if the…Continue reading “It is Impossible to be 100% Vegan.”