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

"There are more important human problems."

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

it's the fallacy of priority. Eating plants takes no time, money or energy away from any other cause. No one has to choose between fighting hunger and no longer paying for animals to be killed: it's possible to do both, and many people do. Besides, livestock farming is linked to serious human problems, such as deforestation, climate change, pandemics and dangerous working conditions.

Short answer

Eating plants takes no time or money away from any other cause. No one has to choose between fighting hunger and no longer paying for animals to be killed: it's possible to do both, and many people do. And livestock farming is linked to serious human problems: deforestation, climate change, pandemic risk and dangerous work. Caring for animals is often caring for people too.

For children

You can help people and animals at the same time. Eating beans instead of meat doesn't stop anyone from donating food, helping a friend or studying to change the world. You don't have to pick just one good thing to do.

Ask a question back

"What would you stop doing for people if you ate beans instead of meat?"

Como pode aparecer

"With so many children going hungry..."

Everyday conversation

"Fight for people first."

Everyday conversation

"There are more important things."

Everyday conversation

"Vegans cry over cows and ignore the homeless."

Social media

"Duties to humans take priority."

Philosophical version

"Vegans care more about animals than people." (which is L6)

Disguised version

The strongest version

How it is said

"With so many children going hungry... Fight for people first."

Strongest version (steelman):

P1There are serious human problems, such as hunger, war and poverty.
P2Moral resources and attention are limited.
P3Human problems should have priority.
CSo concern for animals distracts from what matters more.

P1 is true. So is P2, in part. The problem lies in the conclusion: no longer eating animals doesn't use up resources that would go to other causes.

The argument is valid if veganism competed with other causes. Its soundness fails because it doesn't.

Full answer

Reconstruction and diagnosis

The argument assumes causes compete:

Action	Does it use up resources from other causes?
No longer eating animals	No: it's a swap on the plate, often cheaper
Campaigning for animals	Some time, like any cause
Donating to fight hunger	Not prevented by veganism

b
Where the argument breaks
1. It's the fallacy of priority.
That there are more serious problems doesn't make smaller ones irrelevant. If it held, almost no cause could be defended.
2. Not causing harm isn't a competing cause.
No longer eating animals is an abstention, not a project that takes up time.
3. Livestock farming affects humans.
Deforestation (H1), emissions (H12), antibiotic resistance and the risk of diseases that pass from animals to humans are human problems.
4. The argument often serves to end the conversation.
Even when it comes from someone devoted to another cause, it's still a false choice: not eating animals doesn't compete with any other struggle.
5. Many people champion several causes.
Animal advocates also work for human rights, against hunger and for social justice.

Data and sources

Source	What it says	Note
Our World in Data, land for agriculture	Livestock uses about 80% of farmland and provides 17% of calories	Shows the link between livestock and food security
Our World in Data, food choice versus eating local	Food production is a large source of emissions, with beef among the highest-impact foods	Shows the link between livestock and climate

d
The strongest counter-reply: animal activism takes energy
The most serious version grants that eating plants doesn't compete with other causes, but says animal activism takes time and money that could go to human causes.
e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
It changes the subject.
The question was about eating animals, not about activism.
All causes compete for time.
And no one demands that only the most serious be championed.
Animal suffering is enormous.
Billions of sentient beings a year, which makes the cause relevant.
f
Back to the moral question
The argument doesn't say animals don't matter; it says other things matter more. But no longer paying for animals to be killed takes nothing away from those other things. The moral question remains: if it harms no one, why not stop?

Reasoning errors

Logical

Is the form valid?

Fallacy of priority

If there's something more serious, the rest doesn't matter

False dichotomy

Either humans or animals

Epistemological

Does the evidence support it?

Ignoring connections

Doesn't see the link between livestock and human problems

Biases

Motivated reasoning

The priority of other causes excuses change

General literature on motivated cognition

Speciesism

Human interests always seem more important

Caviola, Everett and Faber, 2019

Extrapolations

The principle being tested is: "as long as there are bigger problems, smaller ones don't matter".

If it applied to…Fighting racismTap to see

It wouldn't matter while there's hunger

No one accepts this

If it applied to…Protecting childrenTap to see

It wouldn't matter while there are wars

No one accepts this

If it applied to…Cruelty to dogsTap to see

It wouldn't matter

Those who use the argument disagree

Contradictions

Devotes time to things less serious than hunger.

Such as hobbies, sport or local politics.

Isn't fighting hunger.

Uses the argument without acting.

Cares about cruelty to dogs.

Without thinking it distracts from human causes.

What the argument gets right

What is true

Human problems are serious and urgent, and no one should be indifferent to hunger, poverty and violence. It's also true that some people present the animal cause in ways that seem to disdain humans, which is a mistake.

But

But no longer eating animals doesn't compete with any of those causes. It's possible to care for people and animals at the same time, and often one helps the other.