Home / L. Attacks on veganism and vegans / Part IND
"Vegan activists are radicals and extremists."
it's reduction to the radical: judging a cause by the methods of a minority. Some activists use controversial tactics, as in any social movement. But most animal advocates act through legal and peaceful means, and the moral question doesn't depend on anyone's methods. Besides, many of the actions called "radical", such as filming on farms, revealed practices society didn't know about.
Short answer
Every social movement has people who use controversial tactics, and those can and should be discussed. But most animal advocates act legally and peacefully, and the moral question doesn't depend on anyone's methods. Many actions called radical, such as filming on farms, revealed practices society didn't know about (B9). And research shows that radical voices can even increase support for moderate ones.
For children
In every big group, some people do things that go too far. But that doesn't mean the whole group is the same, or that their idea is wrong. Most people who defend animals do it by talking, by choosing what they eat and by helping animals. What matters is whether animals feel and deserve to be cared for.
"If the most radical activists disappeared, would the question about the animals stop existing?"
Como pode aparecer
"Eco-terrorists."
"Vegans break into farms."
"They're extremists."
"Radical vegans want to destroy farming."
"Animal activism is a threat to property."
"Radical veganism pushes people away." (which is K6)
The strongest version
"Eco-terrorists. Vegans break into farms."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Some animal activists trespass, damage property or intimidate people.
- P2These tactics are illegal or unethical.
- P3A movement that uses these tactics doesn't deserve support.
- CSo veganism should be rejected.
P1 is true of a minority. P2 is true of some tactics. The problem lies in P3 and the conclusion: the methods of some don't determine the validity of the cause.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P3.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument judges the cause by the methods of a part of it:
What the argument assesses What it should assess The tactics of a minority The moral question about animals The acts of some activists The reasons for veganism - b
Where the argument breaks
1. It's reduction to the radical.
A cause doesn't become wrong because some of its supporters use questionable methods.
2. Most act peacefully.
Consumer choices, education, legal and political action.
3. Many movements had radical wings.
Abolitionism, women's suffrage and civil rights all had activists who used controversial tactics, and the causes were just.
4. "Radical" actions revealed facts.
Investigations in farms and slaughterhouses showed practices society didn't know about, and some led to prosecutions and changes (B9).
5. The radical flank can help moderates.
Experiments from 2022, including one about the animal movement, found that the presence of a radical group increased support for moderate groups.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Simpson, Willer and Feinberg, 2022, *PNAS Nexus* The presence of a radical flank increased support for moderate groups in the same movement Also used in K6 Animal Legal and Historical Center, ag-gag laws Laws criminalizing filming on farms have been struck down in several US states Shows that part of the "radicalism" is documentation - d
The strongest counter-reply: violence must be condemned
The most serious version points out that some actions caused real harm to people and property, and that no cause justifies violence.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Condemning violence is compatible with veganism.
And most vegans condemn it.
The methods of some don't change the question.
The question about the animals remains.
Violence also happens to animals.
Every day, legally and on an industrial scale.
- f
Back to the moral question
Judging the cause by the methods of some is a way of not discussing the cause. The moral question remains, whoever defends it and however: is it fair to make animals suffer and die when we don't need to?
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Reduction to the radical
Hasty generalization
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Evading the question
Biases
Availability heuristic
Extreme cases in the news seem representative
General literature on heuristics
Reactive devaluation
The radical label serves to dismiss the proposal without examining it
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if some supporters of a cause are radical, the cause is wrong".
If it applied to…AbolitionismTap to see
It would be wrong, because some abolitionists used violence
Absurd
If it applied to…The suffrage movementTap to see
It would be wrong, because some suffragettes smashed windows
Absurd
If it applied to…VeganismTap to see
It would be wrong
The same error
Contradictions
But condemns actions against property.
Which uses similar methods.
What the argument gets right
What is true
Some activists use tactics that may be illegal, dangerous or counterproductive, and these should be discussed openly. No cause justifies violence against people, and the animal movement should make that clear.
But
But the methods of some don't decide the cause. The question about the animals stays the same, and deserves its own answer.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after