Home / J. Practicality, economy and society / Part IND

J17

"Look what you're missing"

Before answering: an indirect argument

This argument is about cost, practicality and the economy, not whether animals deserve respect. Many activists question this kind of argument in defending animals, because it sidesteps what matters: no one defends the rights of people who face discrimination by saying that treating them fairly is good for the environment.

Why it is not good to use it, or why always to pair it with an ethical argument: If veganism were defended for being cheap, practical or good for the economy, any situation in which exploitation were cheaper or created more jobs would justify it. No one accepts this reasoning when the victims are human: exploiting people was once profitable too.

When used to justify exploitation, arguments like this one usually fail twice. They get the facts wrong, which often arrive distorted. And they get the morality wrong, because they leap from what is to what ought to be: even a real benefit would not show it is just to make someone suffer and die to obtain it.

So show the facts and correct what is wrong, but always come back to what matters: respect for animals and justice toward them. Learn why

The answer in one sentence

the barbecue photo in the comments of a vegan post shows the plate, but doesn't answer the question the post asked: what happened to whoever became the plate. Most vegans have eaten meat and know how it tastes; they didn't stop because they didn't know the flavor, but because they know the cost. And it's curious that those who share the photo of the steak rarely want to share the one from the slaughterhouse.

Short answer

I know the taste; I ate meat my whole life before I changed. I didn't stop because I didn't know the flavor; I stopped because I know the cost. The photo shows the plate, but not the animal. If the photo of the plate can be shared, why not the one of the slaughter?

For children

If someone showed off a beautiful cake made with money they secretly took from another person, the cake would still look nice, but no one would think it was right. Seeing tasty food doesn't change what happened for it to exist. Vegans know meat tastes good; they chose not to eat it because the animal wanted to live.

Ask a question back

"Would you also post a photo of how this animal lived and died?"

Como pode aparecer

A barbecue photo in the comments of a vegan post

Social media

"Mmm, steak. Jealous?"

Social media

"You don't know what you're missing."

Everyday conversation

"Have a little bite, no one will know."

Everyday conversation

"Don't you crave it when you smell it?"

Rhetorical question

"Meat tastes good." (which is J11)

Disguised version

The strongest version

How it is said

A photo of a juicy steak in the comments of a vegan post, captioned "Look what you're missing".

Strongest version (steelman):

P1Veganism requires giving up pleasures most people value highly.
P2No one would accept such a great loss without a very strong reason.
P3Showing the lost pleasure makes the size of the sacrifice clear.
CSo veganism asks too much, and those who adopt it are missing something worthwhile.

P1 has a true core: changing eating habits has a cost, especially at the start. The problem lies in P2 and P3: the reason exists, and the size of the pleasure says nothing about the size of the harm on the other side.

The argument is invalid: from something being pleasurable it doesn't follow that it's just.

Full answer

Reconstruction and diagnosis

The taunt assumes vegans reject meat because they don't know or underestimate the pleasure. But the vegan decision usually has a different structure:

What the photo assumes	What actually happens
The vegan doesn't know what they're missing	Most ate meat for years and know the flavor
Pleasure is the only factor	Pleasure is weighed against the animal's life and suffering
Seeing the plate will change their mind	Craving isn't an argument: wanting something doesn't make the act just

b
Where the argument breaks
1. Knowing the taste doesn't change the cost.
The vegan question was never "does meat taste good?". It was "does the flavor justify what is done to the animal?" (J11).
2. The photo hides half the story.
It shows the result and leaves out the process. It's the same logic as "I don't want to see those videos" (E7): the plate can be seen; the animal can't.
3. Temptation isn't a reason.
Craving something is common for people who've changed a habit, and it doesn't show the old habit was right. People who quit smoking also crave a cigarette when they see one.
4. "Missing out" is relative.
The vegan stops eating one ingredient but still eats well. The animal, if eaten, loses everything.
5. It's often a provocation meant to annoy, not to persuade.
It offers no reason at all; it just tries to stir up craving or a reaction.

Data and sources

Source	What it says	Note
Piazza et al., 2015	"Nice" is among the four most common justifications for eating meat	The "4Ns"
Bastian et al., 2012	Being reminded that meat comes from an animal that could feel causes discomfort, and people tend to reduce the mind they attribute to it	Helps explain why only the plate appears in the photo
Brehm, A Theory of Psychological Reactance (1966)	Threatened freedom leads to reasserting the behavior	The challenging tone of the taunt

d
The strongest counter-reply: the sacrifice shows veganism is too hard
The most serious version says: if even vegans have cravings, veganism demands constant renunciation, and a morality that demands so much isn't reasonable for most people.
e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Cravings are common in any change.
That shows changing costs something at first, not that the change is wrong.
Cravings fade.
Food preferences change with exposure, and many vegans report losing the craving over time.
Difficulty isn't injustice.
That something is hard explains why many people haven't changed yet, but doesn't make what is done to the animal just (J9).
f
Back to the moral question
Even if the photo stirred a craving in every vegan in the world, the question would remain the same: does the desire to eat a dish justify the life and death it required?

Reasoning errors

Logical

Is the form valid?

Changing the question

Swaps "is it just?" for "is it tasty?"

Appeal to emotion

Uses the craving the image stirs instead of a reason

Epistemological

Does the evidence support it?

Selective omission

Shows the result and hides the process

Moral

Is the criterion coherent?

Desire as justification

Takes the wish to eat as proof that eating is right

Biases

Rationalization through the 4Ns

Flavor serves as a ready-made justification

Piazza et al., 2015

Meat-animal dissociation

The plate appears without the animal, which eases discomfort

Bastian et al., 2012

Psychological reactance

The vegan post is felt as a threat to freedom and provokes a challenge

Brehm, 1966

Extrapolations

The principle being tested is: "if something is tasty, whoever gives it up is wrong".

If it applied to…People who quit smoking or drinkingTap to see

Showing the cigarette or the glass would be a good argument to go back

No one takes this seriously

If it applied to…Products of slave laborTap to see

If the product is good, whoever boycotts it is "missing out"

Pleasure doesn't erase injustice

If it applied to…Dog meatTap to see

An appetizing photo would make it acceptable to eat

Almost no one accepts this

Contradictions

Shows the plate, but not the animal.

Whoever shares the steak wouldn't share the slaughterhouse.

Respects people who quit other habits.

No one sends a photo of a cigarette to someone who quit smoking and thinks it's a good argument.

Admits pleasure is the reason.

By appealing to flavor, offers no other justification.

What the argument gets right

What is true

It's right that changing eating habits has a cost, and that this cost shouldn't be denied or ridiculed. Many vegans miss certain flavors, especially at first, and saying so honestly helps more than pretending there's no craving at all.

But

But the wish to eat isn't a moral reason. What's lost on one side is a dish; on the other, it's a life.

Connections

Usually comes before

J16 My food beats yoursThe verbal taunt becomes a photo

J10 Vegan food is bland.The vegan would be missing the flavor

J17this argument

Usually comes after

J11 Meat tastes good.Without the photo, pleasure is left as the justification

E7 I don't want to see those videos.The plate is shown, but not the slaughter

L9 I'll eat double to make up for you.The taunt becomes a challenge

References

Psychology

Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. *Appetite*, 91.
Don't mind meat? The denial of mind to animals used for human consumption. *Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin*, 38(2).
A Theory of Psychological Reactance. Academic Press.