Home / J. Practicality, economy and society / Part IND
"A vegan world is utopian."
the argument confuses the feasibility of a total, immediate change with present individual duty. Perhaps the world will never be entirely vegan, just as crime has never disappeared. But that doesn't change what each person should do today. Many moral changes seemed utopian before they happened, and the relevant question isn't whether everyone will change, but whether I should.
Short answer
Perhaps the world will never be entirely vegan, just as crime has never disappeared. But each person's duty doesn't depend on everyone fulfilling it. Abolishing slavery, giving women the vote and protecting children from labor all once seemed utopian. The relevant question isn't whether everyone will change, but whether I should. And each person who changes spares real animals, today.
For children
Maybe not everyone in the world will stop eating meat. But that doesn't change what each of us can do. Not everyone is kind, and it's still worth being kind. Every animal who stops suffering matters.
"If the world will never be perfect, does that excuse you from doing what's right?"
Como pode aparecer
"That will never happen."
"It's a hippie dream."
"The world isn't going to go vegan."
"Veganism is a utopia for people who don't know the real world."
"Unattainable ideals don't create obligations."
"One person doesn't make a difference." (which is K1)
The strongest version
"That will never happen. It's a hippie dream."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1A fully vegan world would require enormous changes in cultures, economies and habits.
- P2Those changes are unlikely in the foreseeable future.
- P3It makes no sense to guide conduct by an unattainable ideal.
- CSo veganism is a utopia and shouldn't guide behavior.
P1 and P2 may be true. The problem lies in P3: individual duty doesn't depend on everyone fulfilling it.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P3.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument confuses two questions:
Question Type Answer Will the whole world go vegan? Prediction Uncertain Should I stop eating animals? Moral Doesn't depend on the prediction - b
Where the argument breaks
1. Duty doesn't depend on everyone joining in.
We don't stop condemning violence because it will never end.
2. Many changes seemed utopian.
The abolition of slavery, women's suffrage and the protection of children were treated as dreams before they happened.
3. Individual impact is real.
Each person who changes reduces demand and spares animals (K1).
4. The world can change partially.
Even without an entirely vegan world, the reduction in animal consumption could be enormous.
5. The argument changes the question.
It answers a prediction, not the moral question.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Kagan, *Do I Make a Difference?* (2011) Each purchase has a real expected effect on production Shows the value of individual action Our World in Data, land use and diets A global vegan diet would reduce farmland by about 75% Shows the change is feasible in principle - d
The strongest counter-reply: unrealistic ideals breed frustration
The most serious version says that championing an unattainable ideal can frustrate people and put them off, and that more modest goals would be more effective.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
It's a strategic question, not a moral one.
The best way to communicate can be debated without denying the duty.
Individual duty is attainable.
Each person can stop eating animals, even if the world doesn't change.
Ideals guide change.
Even when they're never fully realized.
- f
Back to the moral question
The question about the world's future is interesting, but it doesn't replace the question about the present: today, for those who can choose, what justifies paying for animals to be killed?
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Changing the question
Nirvana fallacy
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Duty conditional on universal adherence
Biases
Diffusion of responsibility
If not everyone changes, no one needs to
General literature on diffusion of responsibility
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if a goal won't be reached by everyone, no one has a duty to pursue it".
If it applied to…Ending violenceTap to see
No one would need to stop being violent
No one accepts this
If it applied to…HonestyTap to see
No one would need to be honest
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Abolishing slaveryTap to see
It shouldn't have been pursued
Absurd
Contradictions
Such as not stealing.
Regardless of the world.
What the argument gets right
What is true
It's true that an entirely vegan world seems distant, and that cultural changes of this size are slow and uncertain. Being realistic about the pace of change helps plan better strategies.
But
But the distance from the ideal doesn't change what each person can do today. Individual duty doesn't wait for the world to change.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after