Home / J. Practicality, economy and society / Part IND
"Fishers and ranchers would lose their identity."
professional and cultural identities matter, and change can be painful. But an identity doesn't justify harm to others: many trades and ways of life have changed throughout history without their communities ceasing to exist. What the situation calls for is a just transition, with respect and support, not the indefinite continuation of the harm.
Short answer
Identities matter, and changing is hard. But an identity doesn't justify harm to others: many trades and ways of life have changed throughout history, and communities carried on, with their stories, festivals and bonds. What the situation calls for is a just transition, with respect and support for those who depend on these activities, not the indefinite continuation of killing animals.
For children
Some families have worked in fishing or with cattle for a long time, and it's part of their story. Changing is hard. But many families have changed jobs over time and stayed themselves. The important thing is to help those who need to change, with respect.
"Should an identity built on harm to others be kept at any cost?"
Como pode aparecer
"My family has always lived from fishing."
"I'm a rancher's son."
"It's part of who I am."
"Vegans want to destroy the rural way of life."
"Cultural identities tied to the use of animals deserve protection."
"We've always done it." (which is D1)
The strongest version
"My family has always lived from fishing. I'm a rancher's son."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1For many communities, fishing or ranching isn't just a job, but an identity and a way of life.
- P2Losing that identity causes suffering and social breakdown.
- P3Asking these communities to abandon their practices is disrespectful.
- CSo veganism threatens legitimate identities and should be rejected.
P1 and P2 are true. P3 has a point about how the subject is approached. The problem lies in the conclusion: an important identity doesn't make acceptable the harm it involves.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails because identity isn't a moral justification for harm.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument treats identity as a justification:
Claim Status Identity matters True Changing is painful True So the harm tied to the identity is acceptable Doesn't follow - b
Where the argument breaks
1. Identity doesn't justify harm.
Many historical identities included practices now rejected, and communities transformed.
2. Identities change.
Trades, traditions and ways of life transform over time, and people keep their history and their bonds.
3. Those who use the argument often don't live from it.
That doesn't invalidate it, but it's a reminder that for whoever buys the product, the question is still their own: what justifies the harm?
4. The transition can preserve what matters.
Knowledge of the land and sea, community bonds and cultural traditions can carry on in other activities.
5. Respect isn't inaction.
It's possible to respect people and argue for change with support and dialogue.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note ILO, *Guidelines for a just transition* (2015) Principles for supporting workers and communities in changing sectors Adopted by the ILO Governing Body - d
The strongest counter-reply: traditional peoples have rights
The most serious version points out that traditional communities, such as small-scale fishers, have recognized rights, and that imposing change on them repeats colonial patterns.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Veganism is addressed to those who can choose.
Communities without alternatives are in a different situation (D3).
The argument doesn't apply to the urban consumer.
Someone buying meat at the supermarket has no such identity at stake.
Change can be built together with communities.
Without imposition.
- f
Back to the moral question
The identity of those who work with animals deserves respect, but it doesn't answer the question about the animals. For those with a choice, the question remains: what justifies causing the death of other beings?
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Appeal to tradition
Hiding behind others
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Identity above harm
Biases
Sunk cost and effort justification
Years in a trade seem a reason to carry on
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if a practice is part of someone's identity, it's justified".
If it applied to…WhalersTap to see
They should carry on, for identity
Many countries have banned whaling
If it applied to…CockfightingTap to see
It would be justified by the breeders' identity
Banned in many countries
If it applied to…Any harmful practiceTap to see
It would be justified if it were part of an identity
No one accepts this
Contradictions
When they involve harm.
In most cases.
In other sectors.
What the argument gets right
What is true
Identities tied to work and the land run deep, and change can cause real pain. Small-scale fishers and farmers often live in hard conditions, and deserve respect and support. The animal movement shouldn't treat them as enemies.
But
But respect for people is compatible with arguing for change. The question is how to make the transition fairly, not whether it should happen.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after