Home / D. Tradition, culture and religion / Part DIR
"It's legal; the law allows it."
legal and moral aren't the same thing. The law follows morality, often with a delay: slavery was legal for centuries. And the law itself already recognizes that animals aren't just any things: the EU treaties recognize them as sentient beings, the UK's Animal Welfare Act punishes causing them unnecessary suffering, and Brazil's Constitution forbids subjecting them to cruelty. The moral question is whether the law is right, not just what it says.
Short answer
Legal isn't the same as right. Slavery was legal for centuries, and women were barred from voting by law in most countries until the twentieth century. Laws change when society realizes they were wrong. And the law itself already protects animals: in many countries, cruelty to animals is a crime, and the EU treaties recognize animals as sentient beings. The question isn't whether it's allowed, but whether it should be.
For children
Laws are rules people made, and sometimes people get things wrong. There have been laws that allowed very unfair things, and those laws had to be changed. That's why, besides asking "is it allowed?", it's good to ask "is it fair?".
"Was everything that was ever legal right?"
Como pode aparecer
"It's not a crime."
"If it's sold in the supermarket, it's allowed."
"It's all within the law."
"Vegans want to criminalize barbecues."
"Are you going to report me for eating meat?"
"The democratic legitimacy of the rules is enough."
"The law guarantees animal welfare." (which is B8)
The strongest version
"It's not a crime. If it's sold in the supermarket, it's allowed."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1In a democracy, laws express the values accepted by society.
- P2The law permits breeding and slaughtering animals for food.
- P3What society democratically accepts is legitimate.
- CSo eating animals is legitimate.
The strong version carries weight: democratic legality is an important value, and people who obey the law can't be treated as criminals. The problem lies in P3: democratic laws have permitted serious injustices.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P3, which confuses legality with justice.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument confuses two questions:
Question Who answers it Is it permitted by law? The law in force Is it just? Ethics, which is also used to assess laws If the answer to the first settled the second, no law could be unjust, and no law would ever have reason to change.
- b
Where the argument breaks
1. Unjust laws have existed and still exist.
Slavery, the exclusion of women and many forms of discrimination were legal. Legality didn't make them just.
2. The law follows morality, with a delay.
Legal changes usually come after moral changes championed by minorities. Using today's law to close the moral debate blocks the very process that changes laws.
3. The law already recognizes animals.
Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union recognizes animals as sentient beings. The UK's Animal Welfare Act 2006 makes it an offence to cause a protected animal unnecessary suffering. Brazil's Constitution forbids practices that subject animals to cruelty. The law itself recognizes that they aren't just any things.
4. The law is inconsistent.
Mistreating a dog is a crime; far worse practices with pigs and chickens are legal when they're part of production (B8). The difference isn't in the animal, but in the use.
5. No one is proposing to arrest meat eaters.
The debate here is moral. The question "should it be banned?" is a different one, dealt with in E4.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 13 Since animals are sentient beings, the EU and member states must pay full regard to their welfare requirements It also allows exceptions for religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage UK Animal Welfare Act 2006, section 4 Makes it an offence to cause a protected animal unnecessary suffering Official text Brazilian Constitution, art. 225, § 1, VII (in Portuguese) Prohibits practices that subject animals to cruelty Basis of Brazil's animal protection - d
The strongest counter-reply: in a democracy, the law is the common standard
The most serious version says that, in a society with diverse values, the law is the only standard everyone accepts, and that demanding more than the law is imposing one's own morality on others.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Democracy includes moral debate.
It's precisely through debate that laws change.
No one lives by the legal minimum alone.
Lying to a friend is legal, and almost everyone thinks it's wrong.
The law already imposes moral limits.
The ban on cruelty is an "imposed" morality almost everyone accepts (E1).
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Legalistic fallacy
Hume's law (from is to ought)
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Not knowing the law
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Outsourcing conscience
Biases
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "what is legal is morally acceptable".
If it applied to…Slavery while it was legalTap to see
It would have been morally acceptable
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Racial segregation lawsTap to see
They would have been just while in force
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Countries without anti-cruelty lawsTap to see
Mistreating dogs would be acceptable there
No one accepts this
Contradictions
Almost everyone disagrees with some law.
Like lying or cheating on a partner.
Which is a moral law about animals.
What the argument gets right
What is true
Legality matters. People who obey the law shouldn't be treated as criminals, and democracy depends on rules applying to everyone. It's also true that legal change has to go through public debate rather than being imposed.
But
But the law is where moral debates arrive, not where they end. The law itself already recognizes that animals deserve protection from cruelty; the question is whether it is being consistent with that principle.
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:
- Aren't Animals Already Protected by the Law? Vol. IV, ch. 17