Home / K. Effectiveness and individual responsibility / Part IND

"Vegans should fight for laws, not diets."

Before answering: an indirect argument

This argument is about effectiveness and individual responsibility, 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 only by each person's impact, anyone who proved their purchase changes nothing would be let off. But no one accepts this for other harms: taking part in an injustice is still wrong even when each person's share is small.

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

it's a false dichotomy. Personal consistency and political action don't compete; they complement each other. Many animal protection laws were won by people who had also changed their own lives. And those who say change must only be political can be asked the same question: are they supporting the laws they say they prefer? Often, the argument serves to do neither one nor the other (E4).

Short answer

You don't have to choose. Not eating animals takes no time away from political action, and the two reinforce each other: many animal protection laws were won by people who had also changed their own lives. Besides, those who prefer the political route can support the laws already under discussion. If you think laws are the way, you can support both.

For children

You can do both: choose food that doesn't hurt animals and also ask leaders to make laws that protect animals. One helps the other. People who look after animals every day are more eager to fight for them.

Ask a question back

"Would you support laws to protect farmed animals, if they were proposed?"

Como pode aparecer

"Diet is individualism."

Everyday conversation

"Do politics instead of pestering people."

Everyday conversation

"Change the laws, not my plate."

Everyday conversation

"Consumer veganism changes nothing."

Social media

"Focusing on individual consumption depoliticizes the animal question."

Academic version

"The problem is the industry, not consumers." (which is B4)

Disguised version

The strongest version

How it is said

"Diet is individualism. Do politics instead of pestering people."

Strongest version (steelman):

P1Change at scale depends on laws, public policy and structural change.
P2Individual consumer choices have limited impact.
P3Activists' time and energy are limited.
CSo vegans should focus their efforts on politics, not on individual choices.

P1 is true. So is P2, in part. So is P3. The problem lies in the conclusion: not eating animals doesn't take time away from political action, and the two reinforce each other.

The argument is valid as a strategic argument for activists. It fails as a personal excuse for eating animals.

Full answer

a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument presents two actions as mutually exclusive:
Action Does it take time from the other?
No longer eating animals No: it's an everyday choice
Fighting for laws and policies Not prevented by individual choice
b
Where the argument breaks
1. It's a false dichotomy.
Changing one's own consumption and fighting for political change aren't alternatives.
2. The two reinforce each other.
Personal consistency gives political action credibility, and changes in consumption create demand that makes new policies easier.
3. Laws depend on social support.
Legal change happens when enough people are convinced. Individual consumption is one way to express and spread that conviction.
4. The argument often serves to do nothing.
The useful question is whether the person using it supports the legal changes they say they prefer. If they do, great, and nothing stops them from also changing their own consumption (E4).
5. Individual choice has a real effect.
Each purchase has an expected effect on production (K1).

Action	Does it take time from the other?
No longer eating animals	No: it's an everyday choice
Fighting for laws and policies	Not prevented by individual choice

Data and sources

Source	What it says	Note
Kagan, Do I Make a Difference? (2011)	Each purchase has a real expected effect on production	Shows the value of individual choice
EU Cosmetics Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009	Bans animal testing of cosmetics and the sale of cosmetics tested on animals in the EU	An example of regulatory change driven by public pressure; also used in I2

d
The strongest counter-reply: focusing on consumption is a trap
The most serious version says that "conscious consumption" talk shifts onto individuals a responsibility that belongs to companies and governments, and that the vegan movement sometimes falls into that trap.
e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
The criticism is of an exclusive focus, not of individual choice.
No one has to choose.
No longer paying for deaths isn't luxury "conscious consumption".
It's refusing to take part in a harm.
The question to the individual remains.
Even if laws are the main route.
f
Back to the moral question
Campaigning for laws for animals is great, and it's consistent with not eating them. The moral question doesn't wait for the laws: until they change, what justifies paying for animals to be killed?

Reasoning errors

Logical

Is the form valid?

False dichotomy

Either laws or diet

Practical contradiction

Calls for laws, but opposes them

Moral

Is the criterion coherent?

Delegating responsibility

Change would be up to others only

Biases

Diffusion of responsibility

Change is up to others

General literature on diffusion of responsibility

Motivated reasoning

Politics becomes an excuse for not changing

General literature on motivated cognition

Extrapolations

The principle being tested is: "if a change must be political, there's no individual duty".

If it applied to…RacismTap to see

No one would need to change personal attitudes, only laws

No one accepts this

If it applied to…PollutionTap to see

No one would need to reduce their own pollution

No one accepts this

If it applied to…AnimalsTap to see

No one would need to change their plate

The same error

Contradictions

Doesn't support laws protecting farmed animals.

In most cases.

Says the state can't ban what they eat.

While calling for laws.

Makes individual choices on other matters.

Without thinking that prevents politics.

What the argument gets right

What is true

Political and structural changes are essential, and the animal movement should invest in them. Protection laws, an end to harmful subsidies and transition policies can reach far more animals than isolated individual choices.

But

But fighting for laws doesn't excuse personal consistency, and personal consistency doesn't prevent fighting for laws. Each strengthens the other, and neither justifies continuing to pay for animals to be killed.