Home / E. Relativism, freedom and evasions / Part DIR
"He eats meat, but he's a good person"
veganism criticizes an act, not the character of the people who do it. Generous, honest and loving people also take part in unjust practices when those practices are normal in their time. Saying someone is good doesn't answer the question of what happens to the animal, and that person's goodness is precisely what makes it likely they'll change once they see the problem.
Short answer
No one is saying he's evil. Good people also take part in wrong things when those things are normal and no one questions them. The question isn't about his character; it's about what happens to the animal. And it's precisely because he's a good person that he'd probably care, if he looked at it.
For children
A person can be really good and still do something that hurts someone without realizing it. Sometimes nobody explained it to them, or everyone around them does the same. That doesn't mean they're bad. It means they can learn. And since they're a good person, when they understand that the little pig suffers, they'll very likely want to stop.
"If he's a good person, do you think he'd agree with what happens to the animals if he saw it up close?"
Como pode aparecer
"I know great people who eat meat."
"My grandma eats meat and she's the kindest person in the world."
"Are you calling everyone evil?"
"Vegans think they're better than everyone." (which leads to L1)
"So 90% of humanity is cruel?"
"A morality that condemns almost every virtuous agent is probably mistaken."
"I'm a good person, I give to charity, I help others."
The strongest version
"My dad eats meat and he's the most honest person I know. Are you saying he's evil?"
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1A good person, in general, doesn't routinely do seriously wrong things.
- P2Many people who are recognizably good eat meat every day.
- C1So eating meat can't be seriously wrong.
- C2And whoever says it is, is accusing people of wickedness they don't deserve.
P2 is true, and it's important to say so plainly. The problem lies in P1, which confuses having good character with getting everything right, and in C2, which confuses criticizing a practice with condemning people.
The argument is valid, but not sound: P1 is refuted by the whole of moral history, in which good people took part in injustices that custom accepted.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument swaps one question for another:
Question About what Who answers Is this person good? Someone's character, across their whole life Those who know them Does this act harm someone? What happens to the victim The facts about the animal The two are independent. A kind person can do an act that causes harm, and an unpleasant person can do a right act. Veganism asks a question of the second kind.
- b
Where the argument breaks
1. Good character doesn't guarantee right acts.
Moral history is full of kind, honest, charitable people who took part in practices now seen as unjust, because they were normal and no one around them questioned them. That didn't make them monsters; it made the practice invisible to them.
2. The criticism is of the practice, not the person.
Saying an act is wrong isn't saying the person who does it is bad. One can act wrongly out of ignorance, habit, or because the environment makes the act automatic. Philosophy has long distinguished assessing the act from assessing the agent.
3. The animal isn't affected by the eater's character.
For the pig in the slaughterhouse, it makes no difference whether the final consumer is generous or selfish. The harm is the same.
4. The person's goodness is a reason for hope, not a defense.
If they care about others, they'll probably care about animals too once they see what happens. Many good people have changed for exactly that reason.
5. The argument often appears as a preemptive defense.
Research on so-called do-gooder derogation shows that people tend to feel judged by those who follow a different moral position, even when no one has accused them. "Are you calling me evil?" often answers an accusation that wasn't made.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Minson and Monin, 2012 Meat eaters tend to expect moral judgment from vegetarians, and this increases their rejection of them Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(2) Thorndike, 1920 The halo effect: the overall impression of someone colors the assessment of specific traits and acts Journal of Applied Psychology, 4 Piazza et al., 2015 "Normal" is one of the four most common justifications for eating meat The "4Ns" - d
The strongest counter-reply: a morality that condemns almost everyone is suspect
The most serious version says: if a moral theory concludes that almost everyone, including the most admirable people, does something seriously wrong every day, that's evidence against the theory. Our judgments about who is good would be more reliable than an abstract argument.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
That test would have failed before.
In various eras, almost the whole of society, including its most respected members, accepted practices we now recognize as unjust. If the rule were "what good people do can't be serious", none of those practices would have been corrected.
The argument isn't abstract.
It starts from facts almost everyone accepts: animals feel pain and fear, and causing unnecessary suffering is wrong. The conclusion comes from common judgments, not against them.
Condemning the act isn't condemning the agent.
The theory doesn't need to say these people are bad; it only needs to say they're mistaken about a practice, which is compatible with their being admirable.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Changing the question
Straw man
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Halo effect
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Confusing agent and act
Biases
Do-gooder derogation
Feeling judged triggers a defensive reaction against someone who didn't even accuse
Rationalization through the 4Ns
"It's normal" works as proof that nothing is wrong
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if good people routinely do something, it can't be wrong".
If it applied to…Unjust practices of the pastTap to see
They'd be acceptable as long as respected people took part in them
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Common prejudicesTap to see
Jokes or exclusions by pleasant people wouldn't be a problem
We recognize the harm anyway
If it applied to…Harmful habitsTap to see
Drink-driving would be acceptable if the driver were a good person
The risk to others doesn't change
Contradictions
The same person admits that someone they love can have prejudices or habits that harm others.
If a pleasant person harms us, the harm is still harm.
And that presupposes the old habit was a mistake, even in someone good.
What the argument gets right
What is true
It gets something important right: people who eat meat aren't bad for doing so, and treating people as villains is unfair and counterproductive. Most people grew up in a culture where eating animals is so normal the question never came up. Defending animals calls for firmness about the practice and generosity toward people.
But
But someone's goodness doesn't change what happens to the animal. And it's exactly because so many people are good that the question is worth asking.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after