Home / L. Attacks on veganism and vegans / Part IND
"Vegans care more about animals than people."
it's a false dilemma and a generalization. Empathy isn't a zero-sum resource: caring about animals doesn't reduce caring about people. A small 2010 neuroimaging study found that vegetarians and vegans showed greater activation of empathy-related areas in response to human suffering too; it's a hint, not proof. And many animal advocates also work for human rights.
Short answer
Empathy isn't zero-sum: caring about animals doesn't reduce caring about people. A small 2010 study found that vegetarians and vegans showed greater activation of brain areas linked to empathy in response to human suffering too. Many animal advocates work for human rights, against hunger and for social justice. And no longer eating animals takes nothing away from anyone.
For children
The heart has no limit on how many people or animals we can love. Caring for your dog doesn't make you love your family less. It's the same with vegans: caring for animals doesn't make anyone care less about people.
"What would you stop doing for people if you stopped eating animals?"
Como pode aparecer
"You cry for the cow but not for the homeless."
"Vegans hate people."
"People first."
"Vegans care more about chickens than about starving children."
"Animal ethics may divert moral resources from humans."
"There are more important human problems." (which is J6)
The strongest version
"You cry for the cow but not for the homeless. Vegans hate people."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Some vegans show more indignation at animal suffering than at human suffering.
- P2Humans should have moral priority.
- P3Whoever reverses that priority has distorted values.
- CSo veganism reflects distorted values.
P1 may be true of some. The problem lies in the conclusion: it generalizes from a few and assumes that caring about animals takes care away from humans.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails because it generalizes and assumes a competition that doesn't exist.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument assumes empathy is limited and competitive:
Assumption Status Those who care about animals care less about humans No evidence; there are hints of the opposite Vegans in general despise humans A baseless generalization No longer eating animals takes something from humans False (J6) - b
Where the argument breaks
1. It's a false dilemma.
No one has to choose between animals and humans.
2. Empathy isn't zero-sum.
Filippi and colleagues found in 2010 that vegetarians and vegans showed greater activation of empathy-related regions in response to scenes of human suffering, not less. The study is small, with 60 people, and measures brain activation, not behavior; but it points in the opposite direction from the stereotype.
3. It's a generalization.
Judging all vegans by a few is unfair, as it would be for any group.
4. Many animal advocates work for humans.
The animal movement has strong ties to social justice movements.
5. Livestock farming also affects humans.
Slaughterhouse workers, communities affected by deforestation and public health (J6).
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Filippi et al., 2010, *PLoS ONE* Vegetarians and vegans showed greater activation of the anterior cingulate cortex and inferior frontal gyrus in response to scenes of human suffering A neuroimaging study with 60 participants - d
The strongest counter-reply: some vegans really do despise people
The most serious version points to real cases of vegans who make disdainful remarks about humans or compare people to animals offensively.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Some don't represent all.
There are unpleasant people in every group.
Such behavior should be criticized.
Including by vegans themselves.
It doesn't change the question about animals.
The question is still about them.
- f
Back to the moral question
Caring about animals doesn't require despising anyone. The moral question stays the same: do animals deserve not to suffer and die without need? Answering yes takes nothing away from people.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
False dilemma
Hasty generalization
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Empathy as zero-sum
Biases
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "whoever cares about one cause cares less about others".
If it applied to…Those who care for the elderlyTap to see
They'd care less about children
Absurd
If it applied to…EnvironmentalistsTap to see
They'd care less about people
Absurd
If it applied to…VegansTap to see
They'd care less about humans
The same error
Contradictions
And doesn't think that reduces care for people.
The argument serves to accuse, not to help.
What the argument gets right
What is true
Some vegans express themselves badly about humans, and disrespectful comparisons can hurt. Animal advocates should take care that their cause doesn't seem indifferent to human suffering.
But
But empathy isn't zero-sum, and the little evidence there is points away from the stereotype rather than toward it. There's no need to choose.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after
Go deeper in Questão de Ética
Chapters from the open-access collection A Journey Through Animal Ethics that discuss this argument in more detail:
- The Claim That the Struggle for Animals Should Be Put Off… Vol. IV, ch. 16