Home / D. Tradition, culture and religion / Part DIR
"Indigenous and traditional peoples eat animals."
the argument uses those with no alternative to justify those who have one. Veganism has never demanded the impossible: its classic definition speaks of avoiding the exploitation of animals "as far as is possible and practicable". What holds for an isolated people in the Arctic or the forest doesn't hold for someone choosing at the supermarket.
Note: this chapter also answers "What about the Inuit, who have no alternative?", which was merged into it.
Short answer
Veganism has never asked for the impossible: its classic definition speaks of avoiding the exploitation of animals "as far as is possible and practicable". An isolated people who depend on hunting to survive are in a completely different situation from someone buying meat at the supermarket. Using these peoples to justify one's own plate is using those with no choice to excuse those who have one.
For children
Some people live in very cold or remote places, where hardly any plants grow and there are no stores. For them, hunting may be the only way to survive. But most of us live near stores full of food. The question isn't about those who have no choice; it's about what we do when we have one.
"Do you live in these peoples' situation, or is there a supermarket near your home?"
Como pode aparecer
"What about Indigenous peoples?"
"Will you tell Indigenous peoples they're wrong?"
"What about people living in the Arctic?"
"Not everywhere has a supermarket."
"Veganism is colonialist."
"Veganism universalizes an urban, Western ethics."
"It's cultural; criticizing it is ethnocentric." (which is D2)
The strongest version
"What about Indigenous peoples? Are you going to tell them they're wrong? What about the Inuit, who have no alternative?"
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Indigenous and traditional peoples have eaten animals for thousands of years, often in ways integrated with their environment.
- P2It would be unjust and colonialist to condemn these peoples.
- P3If eating animals isn't wrong for them, it can't be wrong in itself.
- CSo eating animals isn't wrong.
P1 and P2 are largely true. The problem lies in P3: what makes these peoples' situation acceptable is exactly what's missing for those who use the argument.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P3, which generalizes from exceptional cases.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument compares very different situations:
Situation Real alternatives Responsibility An isolated people who depend on hunting or fishing to survive Few or none Greatly reduced A city dweller with access to stores Many Full The argument uses the first case to draw conclusions about the second. It's a hasty generalization from an exception: an exception becomes the rule.
- b
Where the argument breaks
1. Veganism already allows for the exception.
The Vegan Society's definition speaks of avoiding exploitation "as far as is possible and practicable". Someone with no alternative isn't violating that definition.
2. Those who use the argument usually aren't in that situation.
It's generally used by city dwellers, with supermarkets and alternatives, who don't live like the peoples they cite. For them, those peoples' situation doesn't change the question.
3. These peoples don't practice industrial animal farming.
Even when they eat animals, traditional peoples generally don't confine billions of animals, breed them to grow until they suffer or slaughter them on production lines. The comparison can't defend the system supermarket meat comes from.
4. Many traditional peoples have practices of respect for animals.
Indigenous traditions vary widely, and several include limits, rituals and recognition of animal life. Treating all these peoples as proof that "eating animals is normal" is also a simplification.
5. The point isn't to condemn these peoples.
Veganism is addressed to those who can choose. There's no contradiction between respecting those who live in extreme conditions and asking for change from those who don't.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note The Vegan Society, definition of veganism Veganism seeks to exclude, "as far as is possible and practicable", all forms of exploitation of and cruelty to animals The classic definition used by the movement - d
The strongest counter-reply: then veganism should be relative
The most serious version says that if veganism allows exceptions for some peoples, it isn't a universal moral obligation but a choice that depends on context, and so everyone can decide where their own exception lies.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Every ethics allows exceptions out of necessity.
Killing in self-defense doesn't turn homicide into a personal choice.
The exception depends on facts, not preferences.
Either there's a reasonable alternative or there isn't. For someone with a supermarket, there is.
Being sensitive to context isn't being relative.
The principle is the same for everyone; what changes is what's possible.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Hasty generalization from an exception
False analogy
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Simplifying cultures
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Borrowed shield
Biases
Motivated reasoning
A distant case serves to excuse a nearby change
General literature on motivated cognition
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if something is acceptable for those with no alternative, it's acceptable for everyone".
If it applied to…Stealing out of hungerTap to see
Stealing would be acceptable for anyone
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Self-defenseTap to see
Any violence would be acceptable
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Clearing land to surviveTap to see
Large companies could clear forests freely
No one accepts this
Contradictions
Not in diet, not in anything else.
The same argument often comes from people who don't support Indigenous land rights.
The comparison doesn't describe what the person does.
What the argument gets right
What is true
Concern for Indigenous and traditional peoples is legitimate. Veganism shouldn't be used to judge those living in conditions of scarcity, and many of these peoples have relationships with nature that are more respectful than those of industrial society. Ignoring that would be arrogant.
But
But respecting these peoples isn't using them as a shield. What makes their situation understandable is the lack of an alternative, and that's exactly what isn't lacking for whoever asks the question.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after