Home / J. Practicality, economy and society / Part IND
"Farmers and slaughterhouse workers would lose their jobs."
this argument has been used against almost every moral and environmental reform: against the end of slavery, child labor, asbestos and coal. Jobs matter, which is why transitions should be planned, with support for those who depend on the sector. But changes in consumption are gradual, and demand for other foods creates new jobs. Besides, slaughterhouse work is among the most dangerous and grueling there is.
Short answer
Jobs matter, and that's why the transition should be planned. But this argument was used against the end of slavery, child labor and asbestos. Changes in consumption are gradual, and demand for plant foods creates new jobs in farming, industry and retail. And slaughterhouse work is among the most dangerous and grueling there is: change could be good for the workers too.
For children
Lots of people work raising animals or in slaughterhouses, and they need jobs. That's why the change has to happen little by little, helping those people find other work, such as growing beans and fruit or making plant foods. Many jobs have changed before, and people have adapted.
"If a sector causes harm, is the solution to keep it forever or to help those who work in it to change?"
Como pode aparecer
"What about the farmers?"
"You want to put millions out of work."
"My town lives off the meat plant."
"Vegans want to destroy rural communities."
"The meat supply chain generates millions of direct and indirect jobs."
"Agriculture is the backbone of the economy." (which is J4)
The strongest version
"What about the farmers? You want to put millions out of work."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Millions of people depend on livestock farming and the meat industry.
- P2Ending or shrinking that industry would cause unemployment and poverty.
- P3Causing mass unemployment is a serious harm.
- CSo veganism is harmful to society.
P1 and P3 are true. P2 is true if the change were sudden and unplanned. The problem lies in the conclusion: change is gradual, and the argument would serve to block any reform.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails because it assumes an abrupt transition with no alternatives.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument imagines an abrupt change with no alternatives:
How the argument imagines it How transitions usually happen Everyone stops eating meat at once Consumption changes gradually Jobs disappear with no replacement New sectors grow with new demand No one helps the workers Just transition policies can support those who depend on the sector - b
Where the argument breaks
1. The argument works against any reform.
It was used against abolition, against child labor laws, against banning asbestos. If it held, no harmful activity could ever be changed.
2. Change is gradual.
Consumption shifts over years and decades, which allows adaptation.
3. New jobs appear.
Demand for legumes, fruit, vegetables, plant proteins and other foods creates work in farming and industry.
4. Slaughterhouse work is dangerous.
Meat and poultry workers face high rates of repetitive strain injuries, accidents with knives and machinery, and exposure to cold and to animal suffering.
5. Just transitions can be planned.
Public policy can support retraining, credit and alternatives for dependent regions.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note US Government Accountability Office, GAO-16-337 (2016) Meat and poultry workers continue to face hazardous conditions, and injuries are likely underreported A report to the US Congress Repórter Brasil and SOMO, *Fábrica de acidentes* (2024) (in Portuguese) Workers in Brazil's meat plants have high rates of injury and illness They suffer four times more accidents than the national average ILO, *Guidelines for a just transition* (2015) Principles for supporting workers in declining sectors Adopted by the ILO Governing Body - d
The strongest counter-reply: rural communities would be hit hardest
The most serious version points out that entire rural regions depend on livestock farming, and the transition could concentrate losses in vulnerable communities.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
That calls for transition policies.
Not for keeping the sector indefinitely.
The same land can produce other foods.
Or be restored with public support (H4).
Concern for jobs doesn't justify the harm to animals.
Even if it justifies care in the transition.
- f
Back to the moral question
The jobs argument is about real people, and they deserve support. But it doesn't answer whether it's fair to raise and kill animals. If it isn't, the question becomes how to make the transition fairly, not whether it should happen.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Proving too much
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Unrealistic scenario
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Economic interest as justification
Biases
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if an activity creates jobs, it shouldn't be changed".
If it applied to…AsbestosTap to see
It shouldn't have been banned
Banned in the EU and many other countries
If it applied to…Child laborTap to see
It shouldn't have been banned, because it brought in income
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Wildlife traffickingTap to see
It shouldn't be fought, because it brings in income
No one accepts this
Contradictions
Even when they created jobs.
Only about their jobs.
In other sectors.
What the argument gets right
What is true
Jobs in the meat supply chain are real, and many families and towns depend on them. Ignoring this would be unfair and politically naive. A transition to more plant-based food systems needs to include workers and rural communities.
But
But the need for a just transition isn't a reason to keep the system. It's a reason to plan the change carefully.
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