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

"Veganism is a political ideology or a globalist agenda."

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

the argument assesses no reason at all; it just associates veganism with something the person rejects. It's guilt by association. Veganism has supporters on the left, on the right and outside politics, and it rests on a simple question: is it fair to make animals suffer and die when we don't need to? Conspiracy theories about "making us eat bugs" don't answer that question.

Short answer

Saying an idea is "leftist" or "globalist" doesn't show it's wrong; it's guilt by association. Veganism has supporters on the left, on the right and outside politics. Its question is simple: is it fair to make animals suffer and die when we don't need to? No one is proposing to force anyone to eat insects. Disagreeing with governments or organizations doesn't answer the question about the animals.

For children

Sometimes, when we don't like an idea, we say it's "something people we don't like believe". But that doesn't show whether the idea is right or wrong. Veganism's question is simple: is it fair to hurt animals when we don't need to? People of every kind can answer that question.

Ask a question back

"If someone you like defended veganism, would the answer to the question about the animals change?"

Como pode aparecer

"It's a leftist thing."

Everyday conversation

"They want us to eat bugs."

Everyday conversation

"They want to control what you eat."

Everyday conversation

"The globalist agenda wants to end the barbecue."

Social media

"Veganism is part of a social engineering project."

Political version

"Eating meat isn't an ideology; veganism is." (which is E9)

Disguised version

The strongest version

How it is said

"It's a leftist thing. They want us to eat bugs. They want to control what you eat."

Strongest version (steelman):

P1Some international organizations and governments propose reducing meat consumption.
P2These proposals are part of broader political agendas I disagree with.
P3Those who promote veganism are, knowingly or not, serving these agendas.
CSo veganism should be rejected as a political instrument.

P1 is true in some cases. The problem lies in P3 and the conclusion: an idea's origin or allies say nothing about whether it's correct.

The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P3, and the argument is a genetic fallacy and guilt by association.

Full answer

a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument swaps assessing an idea for assessing its supposed allies:
What the argument does What it should do
Associates veganism with rejected groups Assess veganism's reasons
Attributes hidden intentions Examine the facts about the animals
Rejects by origin Judge by content
b
Where the argument breaks
1. It's guilt by association.
An idea doesn't become wrong because people we dislike defend it.
2. It's the genetic fallacy.
An idea's origin doesn't determine its truth.
3. Veganism cuts across parties.
There are vegans of many political positions, and concern for animals appears in very different religious, philosophical and cultural traditions.
4. The conspiracy theories have no basis.
There's no proposal to force populations to eat insects. There is research on alternative protein sources, which is something else.
5. There's no imposition under way.
No government is forcing anyone to be vegan. Arguing that exploiting animals is wrong isn't the same as imposing a law, and the debate about what the state should do is a different one (E4).

What the argument does	What it should do
Associates veganism with rejected groups	Assess veganism's reasons
Attributes hidden intentions	Examine the facts about the animals
Rejects by origin	Judge by content

Data and sources

Source	What it says	Note
Pew Research Center, diet in India (2021)	39% of Indian adults describe themselves as vegetarian, largely for religious reasons	Shows that refusing meat doesn't belong to one political camp

d
The strongest counter-reply: there are real public policies against meat
The most serious version points out that governments and organizations discuss targets for reducing meat consumption, and that being wary of those policies is legitimate.
e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Being wary of policies is different from rejecting the moral question.
One can disagree with a policy and still stop eating animals.
Individual choice doesn't depend on policy.
No one needs a government to change their own plate.
The question about the animals remains.
No political wariness answers it.
f
Back to the moral question
The argument shifts the focus from the animals to politics. But the pig, the hen and the cow belong to no party. The moral question is the same for anyone, of any persuasion: is it fair to make them suffer and die when we don't need to?

Reasoning errors

Logical

Is the form valid?

Guilt by association

Rejects the idea because of its supposed allies

Genetic fallacy

Judges the idea by its origin

Epistemological

Does the evidence support it?

Conspiratorial thinking

Attributes hidden intentions without evidence

Biases

Group identity

The question becomes a fight between political groups

General literature on identity-protective cognition

Psychological reactance

Feeling one's freedom threatened breeds rejection

General literature on reactance

Extrapolations

The principle being tested is: "if an idea is defended by groups I dislike, it's wrong".

If it applied to…Protecting dogsTap to see

It would be wrong if defended by political opponents

No one concludes this

If it applied to…Fighting corruptionTap to see

It would be wrong if defended by the other side

No one concludes this

If it applied to…VeganismTap to see

It would be wrong by association

The same error

Contradictions

Knows vegans of different political positions.

Or could.

Doesn't reject other ideas because of who defends them.

When they agree with them.

Values freedom of choice.

And veganism is a choice.

What the argument gets right

What is true

It's legitimate to be wary of policies imposed from above, and some proposals for dietary change can be poorly communicated or authoritarian. It's also true that the subject has been politicized, and that vegans sometimes reinforce that polarization.

But

But the question about animals comes before party politics. Anyone can examine it, and its answer doesn't depend on who asks it.