Home / L. Attacks on veganism and vegans / Part IND
"Comparing animal farming to slavery or the Holocaust is offensive."
the objection is substantially right: these comparisons can hurt people and communities who suffered atrocities, and they should be made with great care, or avoided. But structural analogy must be distinguished from moral equivalence. Pointing out similarities of mechanism, such as treating beings as things, isn't saying the victims are worth the same or that the suffering is equal. And the case for animals doesn't depend on these comparisons.
Short answer
These comparisons can hurt, and it's fair to ask for care with them, or to avoid them. But two things need separating: pointing out similarities of mechanism, such as treating sentient beings as things, isn't saying the victims are worth the same. Some people close to these atrocities have made such comparisons themselves. In any case, the defense of animals doesn't depend on these analogies: it stands on its own.
For children
Some very sad things happened to people in history, and it's important to remember them with respect. Comparing those tragedies with other things can hurt those who suffered. That's why it's better to talk about animals without using those comparisons. Animals deserve care for their own sake.
"Setting the comparisons aside, what do you think of what happens to the animals?"
Como pode aparecer
"You trivialize the Holocaust."
"That comparison is racist."
"How can you compare people to chickens?"
"A vegan comparing slavery to dairy cows."
"Analogies with genocide instrumentalize human suffering."
"Vegans care more about animals than people." (which is L6)
The strongest version
"You trivialize the Holocaust. That comparison is racist."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Slavery and the Holocaust were atrocities against human beings, whose memory must be respected.
- P2Comparing these atrocities with the treatment of animals can suggest the human victims are worth no more than animals.
- P3That suggestion offends descendants and survivors, and reproduces the historical dehumanization they suffered.
- CSo these comparisons are offensive and should be rejected.
P1 is true. P2 and P3 point to a real risk: in many situations, these comparisons hurt. The problem is concluding from this that the question of animals can be dismissed.
The argument is valid as a criticism of a way of communicating. It fails when used to reject the moral question about animals.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument mixes a legitimate criticism of form with a rejection of content:
Question Answer Can these comparisons hurt? Yes, and they should be used with care or avoided Is comparing mechanisms equating victims? Not necessarily: analogy isn't equivalence Does the question of animals depend on these comparisons? No - b
Where the argument breaks
1. Analogy isn't equivalence.
Comparing structures, such as objectification, property and the denial of interests, isn't claiming the victims are worth the same.
2. Criticizing the form doesn't refute the content.
If the comparison is inappropriate, the answer is not to use it, not to dismiss the question of animals.
3. Some people close to these atrocities made the comparison.
Writers and people who lived through atrocities have drawn comparisons of this kind. That doesn't oblige anyone to make them, but it shows they aren't necessarily disrespectful.
4. The case for animals stands without analogies.
Sentience, the needlessness of the harm and moral consistency are enough (A10).
5. Care is a duty for those who defend animals.
Especially toward communities still living with the consequences of these atrocities.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Spiegel, *The Dreaded Comparison* (1988) Discusses the comparison between human slavery and animal exploitation Mirror Books; written by an author who defends the comparison Patterson, *Eternal Treblinka* (2002) Discusses historical parallels between the treatment of animals and the Holocaust Lantern Books; a controversial work - d
The strongest counter-reply: the harm of the comparison outweighs the benefit
The most serious version says that even if the analogy is structurally valid, it hurts so much and alienates so many people that it shouldn't be used.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
It may be right about strategy.
Many animal advocates agree and avoid these comparisons.
It's about communication, not about the animals.
The moral question remains.
There are other ways to speak.
Animal suffering can be described on its own terms.
- f
Back to the moral question
Even without any historical comparison, the moral question remains: animals feel, and we make them suffer and die without need. Is that fair?
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Confusing analogy with equivalence
Changing the subject
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Dismissing the question
Biases
Affect heuristic
The emotional reaction to the comparison replaces assessment
General literature on the affect heuristic
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if a comparison offends, the question being compared can be dismissed".
If it applied to…Exaggerated political comparisonsTap to see
Political questions could be ignored
No one concludes this
If it applied to…Medical analogiesTap to see
Diseases compared to wars would stop mattering
Absurd
If it applied to…AnimalsTap to see
The question of animals could be ignored
The same error
Contradictions
Without implying equivalence.
If not, the objection wasn't only about form.
What the argument gets right
What is true
This objection is largely right. Comparisons with slavery and the Holocaust can deeply hurt people and communities still living with the consequences of these atrocities, and animal advocates have used them disrespectfully. Care here is a duty.
But
But criticizing the form doesn't erase the content. The defense of animals can and should be made without instrumentalizing human suffering, and it still stands.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after
References
Philosophy and history
- The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery.
- Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust.