Home / L. Attacks on veganism and vegans / Part IND
"Raising vegan children is imposing an ideology"
every family passes values and eating habits on to its children, and serving meat is also a choice made by the parents. The charge of "imposition" only appears when the values differ from the majority's. Research shows children tend to be less speciesist than adults: the idea that some animals are food is, to a large extent, learned. What matters is caring well for the child's health (G8), explaining the reasons and letting them think for themselves as they grow.
Short answer
Every family passes values and habits on to its children. Serving meat is also a choice made by the parents; it just doesn't look like a choice because it's the most common one. What matters is caring well for the child's diet, explaining the reasons and letting them think for themselves as they grow. And, interestingly, research shows children tend to be less speciesist than adults: the idea that some animals are food is, to a large extent, learned.
For children
Every family teaches children things: brushing teeth, saying thank you, not hitting classmates. Some families also teach not to eat animals, because animals feel pain and fear. Other families serve meat. Both are teaching something. The best is when parents explain why and let the child ask questions.
"When a family serves meat to its children every day, is it imposing an ideology?"
Como pode aparecer
"Imposing veganism on a child is brainwashing."
"Let them choose when they grow up."
"Poor kid, can't even have a burger at a party."
"Vegan parents indoctrinate their kids."
"Children and pregnant women can't be vegan." (which is G8)
"Veganism is a cult, a religion." (which is L2)
The strongest version
"It's fine for you to be vegan, but imposing it on your child is brainwashing. Let them choose when they grow up."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Children aren't yet able to assess complex moral and political positions.
- P2Parents shouldn't impose their personal ideological convictions on their children.
- P3Veganism is a personal ideological conviction of the parents.
- CSo raising vegan children is an illegitimate imposition.
P1 is partly true. P2 has some truth: parents should respect their children's growing autonomy. The problem lies in P3 and in the asymmetry: eating animals is also a conviction and a habit passed on by parents, and no one calls it an imposition.
The argument is valid, but not sound: P3 treats only the minority position as ideology, and the conclusion would apply equally to those who serve meat.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument applies a double standard to the same situation:
Situation Is it the parents' choice? Is it usually called imposition? Serving meat every day Yes No Taking the child to the zoo or the rodeo Yes No Raising the child without animal products Yes Yes The difference isn't between imposing and not imposing, but in which value is passed on.
- b
Where the argument breaks
1. There's no neutral upbringing.
Parents decide what the child eats, wears, learns and goes to. Serving meat is as much the parents' choice as not serving it. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes parents' role in guiding their children, in a way consistent with the child's evolving capacities.
2. Speciesism seems to be largely learned.
In a study of 479 people, children aged 9 to 11 showed less speciesism than adults, were less likely to see farm animals as food and thought they ought to be treated better. In another, children aged 5 to 9 prioritized humans over animals far less than adults did. The authors suggest that the strong priority given to humans appears late and is probably socially acquired.
3. Teaching reasons is different from preventing questions.
There's a difference between indoctrinating, which is stopping a person from thinking, and educating, which is explaining why something is done and welcoming questions. Vegan parents can and should explain their reasons, and the child can revisit their choices as they grow, like anyone.
4. There's someone else affected: the animals.
The parents' decision doesn't affect only the child. The animals that would be bred and killed to feed them are affected too, and that interest doesn't vanish because they're outside the family.
5. Health is a separate question, and should be taken seriously.
A vegan diet for children requires planning and professional follow-up. That's a legitimate point, dealt with in chapter G8, but it's a question of care, not "ideology".
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note McGuire, Palmer and Faber, 2022 Children aged 9 to 11 showed less speciesism than adults, were less likely to see farm animals as food and considered eating animals less acceptable Social Psychological and Personality Science, 14(2) Wilks et al., 2020 Children aged 5 to 9 prioritized humans over animals much less than adults; the strong priority for humans seems socially acquired Psychological Science, 32(1) UN, Convention on the Rights of the Child Recognizes parents' right and duty to guide their children, consistent with their evolving capacities (articles 5 and 14) - d
The strongest counter-reply: eating meat is the default; veganism is the exception that needs justifying
The most serious version says: the cultural default doesn't need justifying the way an exception does. Whoever raises a child outside the default takes on greater responsibilities, especially for the child's health and social life.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Being the default isn't being neutral.
Greater responsibility isn't illegitimacy.
One can require vegan parents to plan meals well without concluding they can't pass on their values.
Social life can be managed.
Vegan parents can prepare the child for parties and school, as families with religious restrictions or allergies do.
- f
Back to the moral question
Even if a vegan upbringing required more care, the question would remain the same: is it just to make animals suffer and die to feed someone who can be well fed without that? Passing on to one's children the answer one believes is right is what all parents do.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Double standard
False neutrality
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Confusing educating and indoctrinating
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Ignoring affected third parties
Biases
False neutrality of the default
The majority habit seems natural, and the minority one seems ideological
Linked to E9
Rationalization through the 4Ns
"Normal" and "necessary" justify meat for children
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "parents shouldn't pass on to their children values the child can't yet assess".
If it applied to…ReligionTap to see
Parents couldn't raise their children in any religion
Many would reject this
If it applied to…Eating habits in generalTap to see
Serving meat would also be an imposition
It's the same case, in reverse
If it applied to…Moral valuesTap to see
Teaching not to lie or hit would be indoctrination
Absurd
Contradictions
But calls only this choice an imposition.
Which is also passing on a value about animals.
And asks only the vegan child to "choose when they grow up".
What the argument gets right
What is true
It's right that children deserve respect for the autonomy they gradually acquire, that parents shouldn't stop their children from thinking for themselves, and that a vegan diet for children requires careful planning and professional follow-up. It's also right that social life matters to the child.
But
But educating with values isn't brainwashing, and serving meat is also a choice made by parents. Raising children who understand why animals matter, and who can ask questions, is education.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after