Home / D. Tradition, culture and religion / Part DIR
"It's cultural; criticizing it is ethnocentric."
respecting cultures doesn't mean accepting everything that happens in them. People who use this argument rarely apply it to practices they condemn, like bullfighting or cockfighting. And cultures aren't fixed blocks: within each one there are people who question their own practices, and veganism mostly criticizes the speaker's own dominant culture, not other people's.
Short answer
Respecting a culture isn't accepting everything in it. People who say this usually criticize bullfighting, cockfighting or eating dogs in other countries, so they don't really believe no cultural practice can be judged. Many places have banned traditional practices precisely because they were cruel: the UK banned bull-baiting in 1835, and Brazil's Supreme Court struck down the farra do boi. And veganism mainly criticizes the culture of whoever is speaking, which is the dominant culture, not that of some distant people.
For children
Every place has its own festivals, foods and customs, and it's good to learn about them and respect them. But if a custom hurts someone, we can talk about it, even if it's a tradition. Many places have already changed customs that hurt people or animals, and they're still themselves.
"Do you think cockfighting should continue, since it's cultural?"
Como pode aparecer
"You can't judge other cultures."
"It's part of our regional identity."
"That's cultural imperialism."
"Veganism is a white Western thing."
"Criticizing meat-eating imposes Western values on other peoples."
"Rodeos, bullfights and circuses are culture." (which is I8)
The strongest version
"You can't judge other cultures. This is part of our identity. That's cultural imperialism."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Different cultures have different values and practices.
- P2Historically, criticizing other cultures often served to justify domination.
- P3There's no neutral point of view from which to judge all cultures.
- CSo criticizing cultural practices involving animals is ethnocentric.
P1 and P2 are true and important. Colonialism used "civilization" as an excuse. The problem is moving from there to the idea that no cultural practice can be criticized.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P3, taken to the extreme, and in the conclusion, which would make it impossible to criticize any practice, including those the person arguing condemns.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument is applied selectively:
Practice People who use the argument tend to say Barbecues, rodeos, fishing "It's cultural; don't criticize it" Eating dog meat in other countries "It's cruel" Cockfighting, dogfighting "It's cruelty; it should be banned" Female genital mutilation, child marriage "It's a human rights violation" If the argument held, it would hold for all of them. Since it isn't applied to all of them, the real criterion isn't "it's cultural" but "it's my culture".
- b
Where the argument breaks
1. Selective relativism.
Almost no one believes every cultural practice is beyond criticism. The argument tends to appear to protect the practices of whoever is arguing, not those of others.
2. The law has already answered.
Many countries have banned traditional practices for cruelty: the UK outlawed bull-baiting and cockfighting in 1835, and every US state bans cockfighting. Brazil's Supreme Federal Court banned the farra do boi in 1997 and cockfighting for violating the constitutional ban on cruelty, and in 2016 struck down a law protecting the vaquejada for the same reason, a ruling later sidestepped by a constitutional amendment (D1).
3. Cultures aren't blocks.
Within every culture there are debates, disagreements and change. Many traditions around the world include vegetarianism, respect for animals or meat-free practices.
4. The criticism is mostly internal.
Vegans criticize mainly the dominant culture they themselves belong to. That isn't ethnocentrism; it's self-criticism.
5. The criterion is the victim, not the origin.
What matters isn't where the practice comes from, but whether it harms someone who didn't consent.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note UK Cruelty to Animals Act 1835 Banned bull-baiting, bear-baiting and cockfighting Summary with sources Brazilian Constitution, art. 225, § 1, VII (in Portuguese) Prohibits practices that subject animals to cruelty Basis of the rulings against the farra do boi, cockfighting and the vaquejada Dizer o Direito, *vaquejada* (ADI 4983) (in Portuguese) Brazil's Supreme Federal Court struck down the state law protecting the vaquejada Also used in D1 - d
The strongest counter-reply: the problem is who criticizes and how
The most serious version says the problem isn't criticizing, but who criticizes and how: campaigns by rich countries against the practices of poor peoples or minorities reproduce colonial relationships, and veganism sometimes does this.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
It criticizes the form, not the content.
One can defend animals without disrespecting peoples and cultures.
It doesn't apply to those who consume the dominant culture.
A suburban barbecue isn't the practice of an oppressed minority.
The movement itself recognizes this.
Veganism defines itself as avoiding exploitation "as far as is possible and practicable" (D3).
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Appeal to tradition
Selective application
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Culture seen as a fixed block
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Selective relativism
Biases
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "cultural practices can't be criticized by outsiders".
If it applied to…Bull-baiting and cockfightingTap to see
They couldn't have been banned
They were
If it applied to…SlaveryTap to see
It couldn't have been criticized in societies that practiced it
Absurd
If it applied to…Violence against women justified as traditionTap to see
It couldn't be judged
Human rights exist against this
Contradictions
Like eating dogs or whaling.
Which were cultural practices.
Eating habits have changed enormously in recent decades.
What the argument gets right
What is true
Concern about ethnocentrism is legitimate and important. History shows cultural criticism was often used to justify domination, and animal advocates should take care not to treat other cultures with contempt or pick easy targets among minorities.
But
But respecting cultures doesn't make everything that happens within them untouchable. The right question isn't whose practice it is, but who pays for it.
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:
- Does the Fact That Speciesist Practices Are Traditions… Vol. I, ch. 9