Home / L. Attacks on veganism and vegans / Part IND
"Hitler was a vegetarian."
it's the reductio ad Hitlerum: trying to discredit an idea by associating it with a hated figure. Even if Hitler had been vegetarian, that would say nothing about veganism, just as his not smoking doesn't make cigarettes good. And the historical question is disputed: there are accounts of him eating meat at various times, and historians debate whether "vegetarian" accurately describes his diet.
Short answer
Even if Hitler had been vegetarian, that would say nothing about veganism, just as his not smoking doesn't make cigarettes good. It's the so-called reductio ad Hitlerum: associating an idea with a hated figure to avoid discussing it. And the historical question is disputed: there are accounts of him eating meat at various times. What matters is whether the arguments about the animals are good.
For children
Some very bad people did ordinary things, like drinking water or liking dogs. That doesn't make those things bad. What matters is whether an idea is right, not who else thought something similar. Hurting animals without needing to doesn't become right just because a bad person also didn't eat meat.
"Hitler didn't smoke. Does that make cigarettes a good choice?"
Como pode aparecer
"Hitler was a vegetarian."
"Hitler loved animals."
"The Nazis passed animal protection laws."
"Guess who else was a vegetarian?"
"Nazi animal protection shows the dark side of the cause."
"Veganism is a cult, a religion." (which is L2)
The strongest version
"Hitler loved animals. The Nazis passed animal protection laws."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Hitler and the Nazi regime expressed concern for animals.
- P2That same regime committed terrible crimes against humans.
- P3So concern for animals can coexist with contempt for humans, and isn't a sign of virtue.
- CSo veganism has no moral superiority.
P1 and P2 have a historical basis, with debates. P3 is a reasonable observation: concern for animals doesn't guarantee virtue. The problem is that none of this says whether it's right to eat animals.
The argument is valid to show that no one is good just for caring about animals. It fails as an objection to veganism.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument tries to transfer a person's reputation to an idea:
What the argument does Why it doesn't work Associates veganism with Hitler An idea doesn't inherit the character of those who practice it Uses disputed historical information Even if true, it would be irrelevant Suggests concern for animals is suspect Many animal advocates have also been human rights advocates - b
Where the argument breaks
1. It's the reductio ad Hitlerum.
Associating an idea with a hated figure doesn't show it's wrong.
2. It's guilt by association.
An idea doesn't become wrong because of who practices it (J7).
3. The historical question is disputed.
There are accounts of Hitler eating meat at different times, and historians debate whether "vegetarian" accurately describes his diet.
4. The Nazi regime used animals in experiments.
Its supposed concern for animals was selective and instrumental.
5. Concern for animals doesn't require contempt for humans.
A small neuroimaging study even suggested the opposite, that vegans and vegetarians react more strongly to human suffering; it's modest evidence, but nothing links concern for animals to contempt for people (L6).
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Berry, *Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover* (2004) Argues that Hitler wasn't vegetarian in the strict sense Pythagorean Publishers; the subject is debated by historians Filippi et al., 2010, *PLoS ONE* Vegetarians and vegans showed greater activation of empathy-related areas when viewing scenes of human suffering A neuroimaging study with 60 participants - d
The strongest counter-reply: concern for animals can be misanthropic
The most serious version says that in some cases concern for animals goes hand in hand with contempt for humans, and that the Nazi example shows this risk.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Any value can be distorted.
That doesn't make the value wrong.
Most animal advocates also defend humans.
And empathy isn't zero-sum (L6).
The question about the animals remains.
No historical figure answers it.
- f
Back to the moral question
Associating veganism with Hitler is a way of avoiding the conversation. The moral question is the same, whoever ate or didn't eat meat: is it fair to make animals suffer and die when we don't need to?
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Reductio ad Hitlerum
Guilt by association
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Disputed historical claim
Biases
Affect heuristic
The emotion tied to Hitler contaminates the idea
General literature on the affect heuristic
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if a hated figure practiced something, that practice is bad".
If it applied to…Not smokingTap to see
It would be bad, because Hitler didn't smoke
Absurd
If it applied to…Liking dogsTap to see
It would be suspect, because Hitler had dogs
Absurd
If it applied to…Building highwaysTap to see
It would be bad, because the Nazis built motorways
Absurd
Contradictions
Hitler didn't smoke either, and no one defends cigarettes for that reason.
Which exist in almost every country.
Like many people, including Hitler.
What the argument gets right
What is true
It's true that concern for animals doesn't make anyone virtuous, and that violent regimes have used animal protection rhetoric selectively. No one should assume that someone who cares for animals is automatically good.
But
But that says nothing about whether it's right to eat animals. The question needs to be answered with arguments, not associations.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after
References
History
- Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover.