Home / L. Attacks on veganism and vegans / Part IND
"Vegans are crazy; they have mental problems"
calling someone crazy is a way of not answering what they say. If the vegan question is whether it's just to make animals suffer for a taste, the mental health of the person asking doesn't change the answer. The idea that vegans have "mental problems" mixes an insult with a misread statistical association, and it treats mental health as something to mock, which is unfair to anyone who lives with a disorder.
Short answer
Calling someone crazy doesn't answer the question: is it just to make animals suffer for a taste? On mental health, some studies find an association between vegetarian diets and symptoms of depression, but the authors themselves say it isn't possible to know what causes what, and there are signs that many people stop eating meat after a diagnosis. And using mental disorders as an insult is unfair to those who live with them, whether they eat meat or not.
For children
When someone doesn't know how to answer a question, sometimes they call the person who asked a name. But the name-calling doesn't answer anything. If a person asks "is it right to hurt the little pig?", calling them crazy doesn't change what the little pig feels.
"If a person with depression says two plus two is four, does the sum become wrong?"
Como pode aparecer
"Vegans are all crazy."
"You have to be nuts to cry over a chicken."
"That's a psychological problem."
"Not eating meat makes people unbalanced like that."
"Vegetarian diets are associated with more depression." (which is G16)
"Veganism is an eating disorder in disguise." (which is G19)
The strongest version
"Vegans are all crazy. You have to be nuts to cry over a chicken."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1People with mental disorders tend to have less reliable beliefs and behavior.
- P2Some studies associate vegetarian diets with more symptoms of depression and eating disorders.
- P3Caring intensely about farm animals is a sign of emotional imbalance.
- CSo vegans' ideas don't deserve to be taken seriously.
P2 has a basis in some studies, with important caveats. The problem lies in P1 and P3: judging an idea by the health of whoever holds it is an attack on the person, and caring about others' suffering isn't a symptom of illness.
The argument is invalid: it's ad hominem. Even if the premise about health were true, it would say nothing about the animals.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument mixes three things:
Claim Type Status "Vegans are crazy" Insult Not an argument "There's an association between vegetarianism and some symptoms" Empirical Found in some studies, with uncertain cause "So what they say about animals is wrong" Logical Doesn't follow: it's an attack on the person - b
Where the argument breaks
1. It's ad hominem.
The truth of a claim doesn't depend on the health of whoever makes it. An animal's pain doesn't get smaller because the person pointing it out has depression, anxiety or any other condition.
2. The association doesn't show cause.
3. Sensitivity to suffering isn't illness.
Caring about others' suffering is one of the foundations of any morality. If it were a symptom, anyone who cries at an injured child would be ill too.
4. The insult is unfair to people with mental disorders.
Using "crazy" or "mental problem" as an insult reinforces the stigma against people who already suffer, vegan or not.
5. Prejudice against vegans is documented.
Research shows vegans are the target of negative attitudes equal to or greater than those directed at several groups that are commonly targets of prejudice. Pathologizing an opponent is a well-known way to dismiss them without discussing what they say.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Ocklenburg and Borawski, 2021 Meta-analysis: vegetarians had higher depression scores, with great heterogeneity; the direction of the relationship can't be established Journal of Affective Disorders, 294 MacInnis and Hodson, 2017 Omnivores evaluated vegetarians and vegans equally or more negatively than several common prejudice target groups Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20(6) Minson and Monin, 2012 Meat eaters tend to disparage vegetarians because they expect to be judged by them Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(2) - d
The strongest counter-reply: obsession with the subject shows imbalance
The most serious version says: it isn't the idea, it's the intensity. People who talk about animal suffering all the time, are outraged at every meal and cut ties over it would be showing an unhealthy fixation.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Intensity doesn't decide truth.
A person can talk too much about a subject and still be right about it.
Comparing with other causes helps.
People devoted to fighting child labor or hunger aren't called ill for it.
Some people's behavior doesn't define the group.
If someone handles their indignation badly, that's a personal matter, not an answer to the question about animals (L1).
- f
Back to the moral question
Even if some vegan had a mental disorder, the question would remain the same: is it just to make animals suffer and die for the pleasure of taste? The answer doesn't depend on who asks it.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Ad hominem
Correlation taken as cause
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Hasty generalization
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Stigma
Biases
Do-gooder derogation
Dismissing those with a moral stance eases the feeling of being judged
Confirmation bias
Cases of vegans with problems confirm the opinion; the others are ignored
General literature on confirmation bias
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if whoever holds an idea has, or seems to have, a mental problem, the idea is wrong".
If it applied to…ScienceTap to see
Discoveries by scientists with depression would be false
Absurd
If it applied to…Humanitarian causesTap to see
Anyone devoted to a cause would be ill
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Any debateTap to see
Calling the other person crazy would be enough to win
It would be the end of rational discussion
Contradictions
A sum or a fact still holds.
But calls people moved by pigs ill.
But uses the label as an insult.
What the argument gets right
What is true
It's right that mental health matters, that there are studies on the relationship between diet and depressive symptoms worth attention, and that vegans, like anyone, can suffer from indignation and need support. Looking after one's own mental health is part of sustainable activism.
But
But the health of whoever holds an idea doesn't decide whether it's true, and using mental disorders as an insult is unfair to everyone who lives with them.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after