Home / J. Practicality, economy and society / Part IND
"Agriculture is the backbone of the economy."
economic importance isn't a moral justification. Many profitable activities have been abandoned because they caused harm. Besides, the argument ignores the subsidies and the costs livestock farming passes on to society, such as deforestation, emissions, disease and water use. According to the UN, public support to agriculture worldwide, livestock included, amounts to about 540 billion dollars a year, and most of it distorts prices or harms nature and health.
Short answer
Being profitable doesn't make something right: many profitable activities have been changed because they caused harm. Farming also isn't only livestock: it includes grains, fruit, coffee and much more, which would carry on. And the argument ignores the costs livestock farming passes on to everyone: deforestation, emissions, disease and water use. According to the UN, public support to agriculture worldwide amounts to about 540 billion dollars a year, and most of it distorts prices or harms nature and health.
For children
Money is important, but it isn't everything. Some things that make a lot of money hurt people, animals or nature. And farming isn't only raising cattle: it's also growing beans, rice, fruit and many other foods, which can keep growing.
"If an activity makes a profit, is that enough to say it's fair?"
Como pode aparecer
"Farming feeds the nation."
"The country lives off agribusiness."
"Veganism would wreck the economy."
"Vegans hate the farmers who feed you."
"Livestock is strategic for the trade balance."
"Farmers and slaughterhouse workers would lose their jobs." (which is J3)
The strongest version
"Farming feeds the nation. The country lives off agribusiness. Veganism would wreck the economy."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Agriculture, including livestock farming, is an important part of the economy in many countries.
- P2It generates exports, jobs and income.
- P3Shrinking livestock farming would harm the economy.
- CSo veganism goes against the national interest.
P1 and P2 are true. The problem lies in P3 and the conclusion: agriculture isn't only livestock, the hidden costs are large, and economic importance doesn't settle the moral question.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails because it leaves out costs and confuses the economic with the moral.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument looks only at the revenue side:
What the argument considers What it leaves out Exports and GDP Subsidies and public credit Jobs Environmental costs: deforestation, emissions, water Rural income Public health costs and the harm to animals - b
Where the argument breaks
1. Profit isn't a moral justification.
Profitable activities have been abandoned or restricted because they caused harm, such as child labor or the use of asbestos.
2. Agriculture isn't only livestock.
Grains, fruit, coffee, sugar cane and many other products would carry on, and demand for plant foods tends to grow.
3. There are hidden costs.
4. There are large subsidies.
A report by the FAO, UNDP and UNEP estimated public support to agricultural producers worldwide at about 540 billion dollars a year, and concluded that most of it distorts prices or harms nature and health.
5. Economies change.
Countries and regions have changed their economic base many times throughout history.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note UNEP, on the report *A multi-billion-dollar opportunity* (2021) Public support to agricultural producers amounts to about 540 billion dollars a year; about 87% distorts prices or harms nature and health A report by the FAO, UNDP and UNEP; checked from the summary Our World in Data, drivers of deforestation Cattle pasture was responsible for about 41% of tropical deforestation Also used in H1 - d
The strongest counter-reply: some countries depend on meat exports
The most serious version points out that countries such as Brazil, Australia and the United States are among the world's largest meat exporters, and that this revenue matters for their trade balance.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Dependence can be reduced.
Through diversification and investment in other sectors.
Global demand can change.
Importing countries are also debating reduced consumption and deforestation.
Revenue doesn't justify the harm.
Neither to the animals nor to the environment.
- f
Back to the moral question
The economic argument is about money, not about what happens to the animals. Even if livestock farming were indispensable to the economy, the question would remain: is it fair to raise and kill billions of animals for profit?
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Appeal to economic consequences
Fallacy of composition
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Omitting costs
Biases
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if an activity is important to the economy, it's justified".
If it applied to…Illegal miningTap to see
It would be justified, because it generates income
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Coal miningTap to see
It would be untouchable
Many countries are phasing it out
If it applied to…Livestock farmingTap to see
It would be justified by GDP
Profit doesn't settle morality
Contradictions
But not those for livestock.
Whose main driver is livestock farming.
Profit isn't the criterion in those cases.
What the argument gets right
What is true
Agriculture is indeed important to many economies, and many families depend on it. Abrupt changes would be harmful, and any transition needs to consider its economic effects.
But
But economic importance isn't a moral justification, and the accounts for agriculture need to include the costs it passes on to everyone. A more plant-based farming sector can stay strong.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after
Go deeper in Questão de Ética
Chapters from the open-access collection A Journey Through Animal Ethics that discuss this argument in more detail:
- Would Veganism Ruin the Economy and Cost Jobs? Vol. IV, ch. 12