Home / L. Attacks on veganism and vegans / Part IND
"Veganism isn't 100% cruelty-free."
it's the nirvana fallacy. Veganism never promised purity: its own definition speaks of avoiding exploitation "as far as is possible and practicable". Reducing harm doesn't require eliminating it entirely. That no life is wholly innocent doesn't make all choices equal: between causing a lot of harm and causing a little, the difference matters.
Short answer
Veganism never promised purity. Its definition speaks of avoiding exploitation "as far as is possible and practicable". Greatly reducing harm is different from reducing none. That no life is wholly innocent doesn't make all choices equal: someone who eats plants causes far fewer deaths than someone who eats animals, including in harvests (H2).
For children
No one can be perfect. But we can try to hurt as little as possible. Imagine two classmates: one pushes others on purpose, and the other sometimes bumps into people by accident. They aren't the same, are they? Vegans try not to hurt animals on purpose, even if sometimes something happens by accident.
"If no one can avoid all harm, does it make sense to avoid none?"
Como pode aparecer
"No vegan is 100% vegan."
"So veganism doesn't exist."
"You kill animals too."
"Veganism is hypocrisy; no one is pure."
"The impossibility of a harm-free life undermines vegan ethics."
"You use a phone, so you're a hypocrite." (which is L4)
The strongest version
"No vegan is 100% vegan. So veganism doesn't exist."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Even vegans cause harm to animals: in harvests, in transport, in industrial products.
- P2Veganism presents itself as a cruelty-free way of life.
- P3If veganism doesn't keep that promise, it's inconsistent.
- CSo vegans have no standing to criticize meat eaters.
P1 is true. The problem lies in P2, which attributes to veganism a promise it doesn't make, and P3, which treats imperfection as inconsistency.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P2 and P3.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument attacks a promise veganism doesn't make:
What the argument attributes to veganism What veganism says Total purity, zero harm Avoid exploitation "as far as is possible and practicable" Absolute moral superiority Choose the option that causes the least harm - b
Where the argument breaks
1. It's the nirvana fallacy.
Rejecting an improvement because it isn't perfect.
2. Veganism doesn't promise purity.
The classic definition already recognizes limits.
3. The differences in harm are enormous.
Vegan diets use far less land and cause far fewer deaths, including in harvests (H2).
4. Intention and avoidability matter.
Accidental, unavoidable harms differ from intentional, avoidable ones (F4).
5. The argument works against any ethics.
No one is perfectly honest or generous, and that doesn't make honesty and generosity meaningless.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note The Vegan Society, definition of veganism Veganism seeks to exclude exploitation "as far as is possible and practicable" Shows purity was never promised Our World in Data, land use and diets A global vegan diet would reduce farmland by about 75% Shows the difference in harm - d
The strongest counter-reply: some vegans present themselves as pure
The most serious version points out that some vegans do present themselves as cruelty-free, and that this self-image is false.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
It's a criticism of presentation, not principle.
The principle doesn't promise purity.
The criticism doesn't favor meat eaters.
If no diet is pure, the one that causes less harm is still better.
Honesty about limits strengthens veganism.
And many vegans practice it.
- f
Back to the moral question
That no one is perfect doesn't answer the question about the animals. Among imperfect choices, one causes far more deaths than the other. The question remains: why choose the one that causes more?
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Nirvana fallacy
Straw man
Tu quoque
Biases
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if a practice doesn't eliminate all harm, it has no value".
If it applied to…Seat beltsTap to see
They'd have no value, because they don't prevent every death
Absurd
If it applied to…RecyclingTap to see
It would have no value, because it doesn't eliminate waste
Absurd
If it applied to…VeganismTap to see
It would have no value
The same error
Contradictions
Even while recognizing everyone causes some.
What the argument gets right
What is true
It's true that no life is entirely harm-free, and that some vegans overstate things by presenting themselves as pure. Recognizing limits is part of an honest ethics.
But
But imperfection doesn't make choices equal. Between causing a lot of harm and causing a little, the difference still matters, and that's what veganism pursues.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after