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

"Poor people have no access."

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

lack of access to food is a real barrier for some people, and hunger is a serious problem. But that barrier doesn't apply to the person raising the objection, who usually has access to shops and chooses what they eat. And the basis of a vegan diet, rice, beans, potatoes and vegetables, is precisely the most accessible food. Veganism also isn't "a thing for rich white people": in India, about 39% of adults describe themselves as vegetarian, and many cultures have ancient vegetarian traditions.

Note: this chapter also answers "Veganism is a privilege of rich white people", which was merged into it.

Short answer

Hunger and lack of access are real problems, and people who are hungry have no choice. But veganism is addressed to those who can choose, and the person raising the objection almost always can. The basis of a vegan diet, rice, beans, potatoes and vegetables, is the most accessible food. And veganism isn't "a thing for rich white people": in India, about 39% of adults describe themselves as vegetarian, and there are meat-free traditions in many cultures.

For children

Some people don't have enough money even to buy enough food, and that's very unfair. People who are hungry don't have a choice. But many people do have a choice and can eat rice, beans and vegetables, which are cheap vegan foods. And in many countries, such as India, millions of people have gone without meat for a very long time.

Ask a question back

"Are you among the people who have no choice about what they eat?"

Como pode aparecer

"Tell that to people who are going hungry."

Everyday conversation

"There's no vegan store in poor neighborhoods."

Everyday conversation

"Veganism is a middle-class thing."

Everyday conversation

"It's for people who live in nice apartments."

Everyday conversation

"Veganism is a privilege of rich white people."

Social media

"Veganism reproduces class and racial inequalities."

Academic version

"Veganism is expensive." (which is J1)

Disguised version

The strongest version

How it is said

"Tell that to people who are going hungry. There's no vegan store in poor neighborhoods. Veganism is a middle-class thing."

Strongest version (steelman):

P1Many people live with food insecurity or in areas with little access to fresh food.
P2For them, choosing what to eat is a luxury.
P3Requiring veganism of everyone ignores these inequalities.
CSo veganism is a privilege, not a moral obligation.

P1 and P2 are true and serious. The problem lies in P3 and the conclusion: veganism is addressed to those who can choose, and most people who use the argument can.

The argument is valid for those who really have no choice. It fails when used by those who do.

Full answer

Reconstruction and diagnosis

The argument uses the situation of those without a choice to speak about those with one:

Situation	Is there a choice?	Does veganism apply?
Hunger and severe food insecurity	No	No: "as far as is possible and practicable"
Limited access, but some choice	Partly	As far as possible
Access to shops and income to choose	Yes	Yes

b
Where the argument breaks
1. It uses those without a choice to justify those with one.
The same pattern as D3. Veganism already allows exceptions for those who can't.
2. The vegan basics are accessible.
Rice, beans, potatoes, oats and vegetables are among the cheapest and most available foods in most countries (J1).
3. Refusing meat isn't exclusive to rich white people.
In India, about 39% of adults describe themselves as vegetarian, and 81% follow some restriction on eating meat. Vegetarianism isn't veganism, and India consumes a lot of milk; but the figure shows that not eating animals is far from being a habit of a white elite. There are vegetarian traditions in Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Rastafarianism and many other cultures.
4. The argument usually comes from those who have a choice.
That doesn't invalidate it, but it shows it speaks about other people: for whoever says it, the moral question still stands.
5. Hunger doesn't depend on veganism, but livestock doesn't help.
Hunger is above all a problem of poverty and distribution, not a lack of food. Even so, livestock farming uses most farmland to produce a small fraction of calories (H4), and a more plant-based system could feed more people with the same land.

Data and sources

Source	What it says	Note
Pew Research Center, diet in India (2021)	39% of Indian adults describe themselves as vegetarian; 81% follow some restriction on meat	A survey of about 30,000 adults
The Vegan Society, definition of veganism	Veganism seeks to exclude exploitation "as far as is possible and practicable"	The exception is already in the definition

d
The strongest counter-reply: the vegan movement is sometimes elitist
The most serious version grants that veganism is possible for many, but criticizes how part of the movement presents itself: with expensive products, distant language and little attention to inequality.
e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
It's a criticism of form, not content.
Communication can and should change.
There are grassroots vegan movements.
In low-income neighborhoods and communities, there are initiatives promoting affordable plant-based food.
The criticism doesn't change the moral question.
For those who can choose, the question remains.
f
Back to the moral question
Hunger and inequality are serious problems, and they deserve to be fought. But they don't justify those who can choose continuing to choose the option that requires animals' deaths. For those with a choice, the moral question still stands.

Reasoning errors

Logical

Is the form valid?

Hiding behind others

Uses other people's situation to justify one's own choice

False generalization

Treats veganism as belonging to a single group

Epistemological

Does the evidence support it?

Lack of knowledge

Ignores vegetarian traditions in many cultures

Biases

Motivated reasoning

Other people's inequality excuses one's own change

General literature on motivated cognition

Stereotype

The vegan is imagined as white and rich

Linked to L1

Extrapolations

The principle being tested is: "if some people can't do something, no one needs to".

If it applied to…DonationsTap to see

Since not everyone can give, no one would need to

No one concludes this

If it applied to…RecyclingTap to see

Since not everyone has recycling collection, no one would need to recycle

No one concludes this

If it applied to…VeganismTap to see

Since not everyone can, no one would need to

The same error

Contradictions

Has access to shops.

And chooses what they eat.

Doesn't fight hunger.

The argument serves to end the conversation.

Eats rice, beans and potatoes.

Which are vegan and accessible.

What the argument gets right

What is true

Unequal access to food is real and serious, and the vegan movement needs to pay attention to it, without judging those who have no choice and without presenting veganism as an expensive lifestyle. The criticism of elitism has substance.

But

But a vegan diet can be one of the most accessible, it exists in many cultures, and it's addressed to those who can choose. For them, other people's inequality isn't an excuse.