Home / E. Relativism, freedom and evasions / Part DIR
"Nobody's perfect; I do what I can."
the phrase is true in general, and often used to avoid doing what is easy. No one has to be perfect, but changing what one eats is one of the most accessible changes anyone can make for animals. "I do what I can" only works as an answer if the person is actually doing what they can.
Short answer
No one has to be perfect, and veganism doesn't ask for that. But "I do what I can" only holds if the person is doing what they can. For most people with access to stores, changing what they eat is one of the easiest and most impactful changes there is. Recycling is good, but it doesn't make up for the animals who die for what one eats. Not doing everything doesn't justify not doing what's simple.
For children
No one has to be perfect, and everyone makes mistakes. But imagine a friend who says: "I can't stop pushing you; nobody's perfect." Actually, he can: stopping is easy! When something is possible and helps a lot, "nobody's perfect" isn't an excuse.
"Is giving up animals beyond what you can do, or just something you haven't wanted to do yet?"
Como pode aparecer
"I do my part."
"Everyone at their own pace."
"At least I recycle."
"Nobody's perfect."
"Vegans use phones with mined minerals too."
"Veganism isn't 100% cruelty-free." (which is L5)
The strongest version
"I do my part. Everyone at their own pace. At least I recycle."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1No one can live without causing any harm.
- P2Demanding moral perfection is unrealistic and paralyzing.
- P3Each person has different limits, priorities and circumstances.
- CSo no one can be required to stop eating animals; it's enough for each person to do what they can.
P1, P2 and P3 are true. The problem lies in the conclusion: not being able to demand everything doesn't mean nothing can be asked, and giving up eating animals is usually among what a person can do.
The argument is valid if "what I can" is understood honestly. It fails when the phrase is used to avoid doing what the person could in fact do.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The phrase can be used in two ways:
Use What it means Legitimate? Honest "I have real limits and I do what's within my reach" Yes Evasive "Since I can't do everything, I don't need to do what I can" No The test is simple: is the person not giving up animals for lack of means or for lack of will?
- b
Where the argument breaks
1. No one is asking for perfection.
The classic definition of veganism speaks of avoiding exploitation "as far as is possible and practicable" (D3). What's asked is reasonable effort, not purity.
2. Changing one's diet is accessible.
For most people with access to stores, swapping meat for beans, lentils, chickpeas, tofu and other foods is possible day to day (J1).
3. Other good deeds don't compensate.
Recycling, donating or caring for a dog are good deeds, but they don't undo the harm done to other animals. It isn't a ledger of credits and debits.
4. "Everyone at their own pace" is reasonable when there is a pace.
If change is under way, the pace matters. If there's no change, the phrase describes a decision not to change (E12).
5. Imperfection in some areas doesn't license harm in others.
That it's impossible to avoid all harm doesn't make easily avoidable harm acceptable.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note The Vegan Society, definition of veganism Veganism seeks to exclude exploitation "as far as is possible and practicable" Shows the demand isn't for perfection Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2016 Well-planned vegan diets are appropriate at all stages of life Shows the change is feasible - d
The strongest counter-reply: people have different priorities
The most serious version says each person chooses their causes: one devotes themselves to the environment, another to poverty, another to animals. Demanding the same cause of everyone would be unfair.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Not causing harm isn't a cause; it's a limit.
No one can choose another cause as an excuse to harm someone.
Choosing causes applies to helping, not to not harming.
No one is obliged to devote themselves to animals; paying for them to be killed is something else.
Causes don't compete.
Changing one's diet doesn't prevent devoting oneself to other causes.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Nirvana fallacy
Moral licensing
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Overestimating the difficulty
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Confusing helping with not harming
Biases
Moral licensing
Virtuous actions in one area seem to compensate for others
Literature on moral licensing
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "since nobody's perfect, nobody can be held to account".
If it applied to…A reckless driverTap to see
They couldn't be held to account for speeding, because nobody's perfect
No one accepts this
If it applied to…A polluting companyTap to see
It would be enough to say it recycles paper
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Someone who mistreats petsTap to see
It would be enough to point out that nobody's perfect
No one accepts this
Contradictions
No one accepts being harmed by someone who "does what they can".
Exercise, work and study take effort.
Which shows the change is within reach.
What the argument gets right
What is true
It's true that nobody's perfect, that demanding purity drives people away, and that everyone has real limits. Some people face genuine difficulties in changing their diet, and they deserve understanding. Celebrating each step also helps more than condemning.
But
But "I do what I can" is a promise, not an excuse. It's only kept when the person actually does what they can, and for most people that includes keeping animals off the plate.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after