Home / L. Attacks on veganism and vegans / Part IND
"Veganism is a cult, a religion."
labeling a position a "cult" is a way of not assessing it. Veganism rests on public arguments that anyone can examine: animals feel, we can live without killing them, and causing unnecessary suffering is wrong. A religion asks for faith; veganism asks us to look at the facts and at the consistency of our own values.
Short answer
Calling it a cult is a way of not discussing it. A religion asks for faith; veganism rests on claims that can be checked: animals feel, well-planned vegan diets are adequate, and causing unnecessary suffering is wrong, which almost everyone already accepts. Defending a position with conviction doesn't make it religious. If it did, any cause defended with passion would be a cult.
For children
A religion asks people to believe in things you can't see. Veganism is different: it talks about things you can check, like "animals feel pain" and "you can live well without eating meat". Anyone can think about this and reach their own conclusion.
"Which part of the argument depends on faith rather than facts and reasons?"
Como pode aparecer
"You preach like fanatics."
"That's indoctrination."
"Veganism is a religion."
"The vegan cult wants to convert everyone."
"Veganism functions as a secular religion."
"Veganism is a political ideology or a globalist agenda." (which is J7)
The strongest version
"You preach like fanatics. That's indoctrination."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Some vegans speak of veganism with fervor, rituals and group identity similar to religious ones.
- P2Religious beliefs can't be imposed on those who don't share them.
- P3Veganism is a belief of that kind.
- CSo vegans shouldn't try to persuade others.
P1 may be true in some cases. The problem lies in P3: veganism doesn't depend on faith, but on facts and arguments everyone can assess.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P3.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument labels instead of assessing:
Feature of a religion Does veganism have it? Belief in entities or revealed truths No Sacred authority No Verifiable claims Yes: animal sentience, nutritional adequacy A widely accepted moral principle Yes: don't cause unnecessary suffering - b
Where the argument breaks
1. Labeling isn't refuting.
Calling a position a cult doesn't show it's wrong.
2. Veganism rests on public arguments.
3. Conviction isn't fanaticism.
Firmly defending a moral position is common in many causes.
4. Eating meat also involves beliefs.
They're simply invisible because they're dominant (E9).
5. Vegans are diverse.
There are religious vegans and atheist vegans, from many cultures and political positions.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note The New York Declaration on Animal Consciousness (2024) Strong scientific support for consciousness in mammals and birds Shows the basis of veganism is verifiable Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2016 Well-planned vegan diets are adequate An empirical basis, not a basis in faith - d
The strongest counter-reply: the group behavior is religious
The most serious version grants that veganism's reasons are public, but says the social behavior of many vegans resembles that of religious groups: strong identity, their own language, exclusion of those who don't follow.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Every group has social dynamics.
Sports fans, parties and professions do too.
Group behavior doesn't change the reasons.
The question is still about the animals.
It's a collective ad hominem.
It judges the idea by its followers.
- f
Back to the moral question
The cult label avoids the question. But the question doesn't require faith: animals feel, and we can live without killing them. What justifies carrying on?
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Labeling
False analogy
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Ignoring the empirical basis
Biases
Group identity
Veganism is seen as "the other group"
General literature on identity-protective cognition
Naive realism and the bias blind spot
Those who disagree seem fanatical rather than people with other reasons
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if a position is defended with conviction, it's religious".
If it applied to…The anti-smoking movementTap to see
It would be a cult
Absurd
If it applied to…Defending human rightsTap to see
It would be a religion
Absurd
If it applied to…VeganismTap to see
It would be a cult
The same error
Contradictions
And doesn't consider them a religion.
Without thinking it's fanaticism.
Which are also shared beliefs.
What the argument gets right
What is true
It's true that some vegans speak with fervor and that groups with a strong identity can become closed. It's also true that no one likes to feel indoctrinated, and that respectful communication works better.
But
But veganism doesn't ask for faith. It asks us to look at facts and at the consistency of our own values, something anyone can do.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after