Home / M. Wild animals, new minds and the future / Part DIR
"Helping wild animals isn't veganism; it's a different cause"
it's true that veganism, as defined, is about not exploiting animals. But the foundation of veganism is sentience: animals matter because they can suffer and have a good or bad life. That foundation doesn't change depending on who caused the suffering. An antispeciesism that cares only about the human victims of nature, and not the animal ones, keeps exactly the kind of exclusion it claims to fight.
Note: this objection is made mostly by vegans and activists, many of whom hold it in good faith. The chapter doesn't question the definition of veganism; it questions whether its foundation stops at exploitation.
Short answer
I agree that veganism, by definition, is about not exploiting. But why not exploit? Because animals feel. And an animal with hunger, disease or parasites feels it the same way, even if no one caused it. No one has to give up the fight against animal farming: we can advocate both, and both come from the same idea.
For children
Imagine you learned that you mustn't hurt others. Great! But if a classmate falls and hurts themselves on their own, wouldn't you want to help too? Not hurting is the beginning. If we really care about others, we also want to help when they need it, even if it isn't our fault.
"If the reason for being vegan is that animals feel, why would an animal's suffering stop mattering just because nature caused it?"
Como pode aparecer
"Veganism is just not exploiting."
"First end animal farming, then we'll talk about wild animals."
"Helping wild animals is welfarism."
"Wanting to meddle with nature is reverse speciesism."
"Animal ethics is about negative duties; positive ones are a different question."
"We didn't cause it, so we have no duty to help." (which is M3)
The strongest version
"Veganism is about not exploiting animals. Wild animals aren't our business. First end animal farming, then we'll talk."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Veganism is a position against the exploitation of animals by humans.
- P2The suffering of wild animals doesn't result from human exploitation.
- P3Mixing the two causes confuses the public and diverts resources from the fight against exploitation.
- CSo helping wild animals isn't part of veganism and shouldn't be advocated by vegans.
P1 and P2 are true as a matter of definition. P3 is a legitimate strategic concern. The problem is the moral conclusion: that something isn't in the definition of veganism doesn't show it isn't a consequence of the same principle.
The argument is valid as to the definition, but invalid as to what matters: from "it isn't veganism" it doesn't follow that "it isn't a duty".
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument depends on confusing a movement's definition with the reach of its foundation:
Level What it says Reach Definition of veganism To exclude, as far as possible and practicable, exploitation of and cruelty to animals Human practices of use Foundation Sentient beings have interests that matter, whatever their species Every sentient being, in any situation Consequences of the foundation Not exploiting; and also taking into account the suffering we can prevent Includes, but isn't limited to, exploitation Veganism can keep its definition. What doesn't hold is saying the foundation stops there.
- b
Where the argument breaks
1. The foundation doesn't ask who caused it.
2. The human test.
A human rights movement can focus on violations committed by governments. But no one would say that, because of this, helping victims of floods or epidemics doesn't matter morally. Choosing a movement's focus is one thing; saying the rest isn't a problem is another.
3. It isn't welfarism.
Welfarism regulates exploitation; the proposal to help wild animals regulates no exploitation at all. Abolitionists also care about animals' wellbeing, and the proposal is compatible with rejecting all exploitation.
4. Different causes don't have to compete.
A person can fight animal farming and support research on wild animals. And teaching that every sentient being matters, whoever caused the harm, strengthens antispeciesism as a whole.
5. It's a hierarchy that survives among vegans.
Giving more weight to exploited animals than to wild ones, just because of the origin of the harm, is one of the forms of speciesism that persist even among those who have rejected exploitation.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note *A Journey Through Animal Ethics*, vol. VII, ch. 9 The proposal to help wild animals isn't welfarist See also chs. 22 and 35 Animal Ethics, "Why wild animal suffering matters" Suffering matters to the one who suffers, whatever its cause The Vegan Society, definition of veganism To exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals - d
The strongest counter-reply: strategy matters
The most serious version says: even if the foundation reaches wild animals, talking about it now harms the movement. The public already thinks veganism is radical; talking about intervening in nature will make it look absurd, and that delays the end of exploitation.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
It's an argument about when and how to speak, not about what's right.
It can justify care in communication, but not denying the problem exists.
Hiding the foundation weakens the argument.
If veganism is defended only as "not exploiting", without explaining why, it loses the basis that makes it coherent and becomes more vulnerable to objections (F3).
The public can understand.
Most people already approve of rescuing animals from fires and floods. The idea of helping wild animals isn't strange; what's strange is treating it as absurd.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Confusing definition and foundation
Non sequitur
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Residual speciesism
Focus on the agent
Biases
Intention bias
Harm only seems serious when there's a culprit
Tomasik, "Intention-based moral reactions distort intuitions about wild animals"
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "only suffering on our movement's agenda matters".
If it applied to…Human rightsTap to see
Victims of natural disasters wouldn't matter morally
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Rescued animalsTap to see
Helping animals in fires wouldn't concern animal advocates
Almost all vegans support rescue
If it applied to…AntispeciesismTap to see
Species would stop mattering, but the origin of the harm would start to
Swaps one arbitrary criterion for another
Contradictions
And then says some animals' suffering doesn't matter because no one caused it.
Which is help for wild animals.
But keeps a hierarchy among animals according to the origin of the harm.
What the argument gets right
What is true
It's right that veganism has a precise definition worth preserving, and that a movement's communication requires choices. It's also right that exploitation is harm we cause, which we can stop now, and that this has practical priority.
But
But the foundation of veganism goes beyond it. If what matters is sentience, the animals suffering in nature matter too. There's no need to change the definition of veganism to recognize this; just don't use the definition as an excuse.
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:
- Is the Proposal to Help Wild Animals Welfarist? Vol. VII, ch. 9
- Attempts to Argue That Domesticated Animals Have Priority Vol. VII, ch. 22
- What Impact Does Veganism Have on the Situation of Wild… Vol. VII, ch. 35