Home / I. Other uses: testing, clothing, entertainment / Part IND
"Having a pet is exploitation too, and your cat eats meat."
adopting and caring for an animal who already exists is different from breeding animals to use. An adopted dog or cat isn't being used to produce anything; they're being protected. As for cats, the available evidence suggests that complete vegan diets can keep them healthy, and whatever is missing is a food engineering problem, not an impossibility. And even if feeding a cat were a hard case, that wouldn't be a license to eat animals.
Short answer
Adopting and caring for an animal who already exists is different from breeding animals to use. An adopted dog produces nothing for anyone: they're protected. Neutering stops more animals being born into abandonment. As for cats, the available studies suggest that nutritionally complete vegan diets can keep them healthy, with veterinary supervision. And even if feeding a cat were a hard case, that wouldn't authorize eating animals when there's no difficulty at all.
For children
When someone adopts a dog or cat who had been abandoned, they're taking care of them, giving them a home, food and affection. That's different from raising animals to eat or sell. Neutering helps stop more animals being born with no home. And there are special foods that help even cats eat well without meat.
"Even if cat food were a problem, why would that make the meat on your plate acceptable?"
Como pode aparecer
"Then you shouldn't have a dog."
"Neutering is exploitation too."
"Your cat eats meat."
"A vegan with a cat is a hypocrite."
"Domesticating companion animals is incompatible with animal rights."
"You use a phone, so you're a hypocrite." (which is L4)
The strongest version
"Then you shouldn't have a dog. Neutering is exploitation too. Your cat eats meat."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Keeping pets involves controlling their lives: confinement, neutering, feeding.
- P2Cats are obligate carnivores, and their food contains meat from other animals.
- P3People who have pets take part in forms of control and exploitation.
- CSo vegans who have pets are inconsistent, and can't condemn those who eat meat.
P1 is true. P2 is true about cats' biology, but not about their food: what they need is nutrients, not meat, and there are complete vegan diets. P3 has a serious point: our relationship with companion animals raises ethical questions. The problem lies in the conclusion: even a hard case wouldn't make acceptable what isn't.
The argument is valid to show there are hard questions. It fails as a tu quoque.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument lumps together different situations:
Situation Is it exploitation? Breeding animals to sell, eat or reproduce Yes: the animal is used Adopting an abandoned animal and caring for them No: the animal is protected Neutering to prevent abandonment It's control, but in the animals' own interest Feeding a cat Doesn't require meat: there are complete vegan diets, and whatever is missing is a matter of food engineering - b
Where the argument breaks
1. Adopting isn't exploiting.
Millions of dogs and cats live abandoned. Adopting and caring for them is helping them, not using them.
2. Neutering protects.
It prevents more animals being born into abandonment, disease and death on the streets.
3. Cats need nutrients, not meat.
Taurine, preformed vitamin A and arachidonic acid can be supplied synthetically, and the taurine in most ordinary cat foods is already synthetic. A 2023 study of 1,369 cats found that those fed a vegan diet tended to be as healthy or healthier on all seven general indicators, and a 2021 study of more than a thousand cats found no harm. Both rely on owners' reports, and most of the differences weren't statistically significant: they support the claim that complete vegan diets can be adequate, not that they're always better. The food must be rigorously formulated, with veterinary supervision, like any other.
4. Whatever is missing is engineering, not impossibility.
If current foods weren't enough for some cat, the way forward is to develop better foods. Precision fermentation and cultivated meat already produce ingredients without killing animals, and the United Kingdom approved cultivated meat in pet food in 2024. Each advance saves the chickens, cattle and fish who are turned into pet food today.
5. Even a hard case doesn't authorize the rest.
If giving meat to some cat were unavoidable, that wouldn't justify the human eating meat.
6. Vegans themselves criticize pet breeding.
Many animal advocates criticize the sale and breeding of pets.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Knight, Bauer and Brown, 2023, *PLoS ONE* Among 1,369 cats, those fed a vegan diet tended to be healthier, without statistically significant differences Health as reported by owners, not examined by vets Dodd and colleagues, 2021, *BMC Veterinary Research* Among more than a thousand cats in Canada and the US, owners reported no harm from plant-based diets Also based on owners' reports Dias and Saad, 2018, Federal University of Lavras, Brazil A vegan cat food met cats' needs on the parameters tested, while a budget meat-based food caused urinary stones Only 18 cats and a short follow-up Meatly, UK approval, 2024 The first approval of cultivated meat in pet food Production still small Vegpedia, can cats be vegan? (in Portuguese) Summarizes these studies and shows that rejection of vegan cat food, including among vegans, often rests on an appeal to nature A popular science source; the article itself notes the limitations - d
The strongest counter-reply: ideally there'd be no pets
The most serious version, defended by some animal rights philosophers, says the domestication of companion animals is problematic in itself, and that consistency would require ending it.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Even on that view, existing animals must be cared for.
No one advocates abandoning the animals who already exist.
Ending breeding is different from ending care.
It's possible not to breed new pets and to care for the ones that exist.
None of this justifies eating animals.
The critique of domestication is more demanding, not less.
- f
Back to the moral question
The argument points to real ethical questions about companion animals, and they deserve attention. But it doesn't answer the central question: for human food, where there's no necessity, what justifies killing animals?
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Tu quoque
False analogy
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
A hard case used as a license
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Appeal to nature
Biases
Motivated reasoning
Someone else's dilemma excuses one's own change
General literature on motivated cognition
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if someone faces a hard case, they lose the right to criticize anything".
If it applied to…Doctors facing dilemmasTap to see
They couldn't criticize negligence
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Parents making hard decisionsTap to see
They couldn't criticize child abuse
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Vegans with catsTap to see
They couldn't criticize eating meat
A hard case doesn't authorize the rest
Contradictions
And doesn't consider themselves an exploiter.
Such as public campaigns.
Only to accuse others.
What the argument gets right
What is true
Our relationship with companion animals raises serious ethical questions: buying and selling animals, breeding for the market and confinement. Feeding dogs and cats also calls for care: any food, with or without meat, must be complete and supervised by a vet. Animal advocates discuss these questions, and not all of them have easy answers.
But
But caring for an animal who needs help is very different from breeding animals to use. And nothing about a cat's food changes what each person can choose on their own plate.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after