Home / E. Relativism, freedom and evasions / Part DIR
"The state can't ban what I eat."
the argument changes the question. The debate was "is eating animals wrong?", and it becomes "should the state ban it?". They're different questions: many wrong things aren't banned, and the answer to the second doesn't answer the first. Besides, the state already regulates what we eat, and the liberal harm principle, which protects individual freedom, was formulated precisely for cases where there's no victim.
Short answer
No one here is talking about arresting meat eaters. The question was whether it's right, not whether it should be banned. Many wrong things aren't banned, like lying to a friend. And the state already regulates what we eat: there are banned foods, health rules and laws against animal cruelty. The liberal principle that protects freedom, the harm principle, applies to choices that don't harm others, and animals are those others.
For children
Some things aren't against the law but still aren't nice to do, like lying to a friend. The question "is it forbidden?" is different from "is it right?". When we talk about animals, the first question is whether it's right to hurt them. Whether the law should change is another conversation.
"Leaving the law aside: do you think it's right to make an animal suffer when there's an alternative?"
Como pode aparecer
"Vegans want to ban meat."
"Vegan dictatorship."
"The state doesn't get to run my plate."
"First the straws, then the barbecue."
"Policies against meat are food authoritarianism."
"It's my personal choice; don't impose your morals." (which is E1)
The strongest version
"Vegans want to ban meat. Vegan dictatorship. The state doesn't get to run my plate."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1In a free society, the state shouldn't interfere with personal choices that don't harm other people.
- P2What each person eats is a personal choice.
- CSo the state can't ban eating meat.
P1 is a version of John Stuart Mill's harm principle, a pillar of liberalism. The problem lies in P2: eating meat affects animals and, in several ways, other people. And even if the conclusion were accepted, it wouldn't answer whether eating meat is morally right.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P2, and the argument answers a different question from the one being debated.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument swaps one question for another:
Question Type Example of an answer Is eating animals wrong? Moral The subject of this guide Should the state ban it? Political and legal Depends on many factors: feasibility, transition, consensus Answering "no" to the second doesn't answer the first. Many animal advocates don't even call for bans, but for voluntary change, subsidies and gradual transitions.
- b
Where the argument breaks
1. It changes the subject.
The moral debate doesn't depend on the legal one. Lying, cheating or being cruel with words are often legal and wrong.
2. The state already regulates food.
There are health bans, labeling rules, bans on eating certain animals, such as protected wild species, and laws against animal cruelty (D7). The idea that one's plate is untouchable doesn't describe reality.
3. The harm principle favors animals.
Mill argued that individual freedom may only be limited to prevent harm to others. The argument assumes eating meat harms no one, but the animals are harmed, and there are also effects on the climate, public health and the emergence of diseases (family H).
4. "Vegan dictatorship" is a straw man.
It attributes to vegans a proposal for an immediate ban that many don't support, and answers that instead of the moral argument. And even for those who do call for laws, the moral question comes first.
5. Protections have always limited freedoms.
Laws against cruelty to dogs limit what owners may do. No one calls that a dictatorship.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Mill, *On Liberty* (1859) Individual freedom may only be limited to prevent harm to others Also used in E1 UK Animal Welfare Act 2006 Makes causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal an offence The state already limits what can be done with animals - d
The strongest counter-reply: change should be voluntary
The most serious version grants that eating animals may be wrong, but says change should come from individual conscience, not the force of the state, because bans breed resistance and black markets.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
It accepts the moral question.
If change should be voluntary, it should happen, and it's up to each person to make it.
It's a discussion of strategy, not justification.
One can debate the best means without denying the end.
Voluntary isn't neutral.
States today subsidize animal farming; removing subsidies isn't banning anything.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Changing the subject
Straw man
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Not knowing how food is regulated
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Freedom without a victim
Biases
Psychological reactance
Feeling one's freedom threatened breeds resistance to the message
General literature on reactance
Motivated reasoning
Changing the question avoids the uncomfortable one
General literature on motivated cognition
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "the state can't interfere with what I do with my money and time, even if there's a victim".
If it applied to…DogfightingTap to see
It couldn't be banned
It's a crime
If it applied to…Buying protected wild animalsTap to see
It would be free
It's a crime
If it applied to…Child laborTap to see
The state couldn't ban those who hire children
No one accepts this
Contradictions
Which limit owners' freedom.
Which limit what can be sold and eaten.
The moral question remains open.
What the argument gets right
What is true
Concern for individual freedom is legitimate, and authoritarianism is a real risk. Ill-conceived bans can be unjust and ineffective, and cultural change tends to last longer when it's voluntary.
But
But the question "should it be banned?" doesn't replace "is it right?". Even those who defend total freedom of choice have to decide what they will choose.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after