Home / F. Edge cases and hypotheticals / Part DIR
"What about the insects you kill while driving?"
accidental and unavoidable harm is different from intentional and avoidable harm. Killing insects unintentionally while driving or walking is a side effect of ordinary activities that are hard to avoid; paying for an animal to be raised and killed is a direct choice. Morality distinguishes the two in every area, and the question doesn't reveal an inconsistency, only the absence of that distinction.
Short answer
Killing insects unintentionally while driving is different from paying for an animal to be raised and killed. One is accidental and hard to avoid; the other is intentional and easy to avoid. Morality makes this distinction everywhere: a traffic accident isn't the same as running someone over on purpose. No one is asking you to avoid every possible harm, only not to cause the harm you can easily avoid.
For children
If you're walking and step on an ant without seeing it, it was an accident. If you look for an ant to step on on purpose, that's different. We can't avoid everything, but we can avoid hurting on purpose when we don't need to.
"For you, is running someone over by accident the same as running them over on purpose?"
Como pode aparecer
"What about the insects you kill while driving?"
"You step on ants."
"Your car kills mosquitoes."
"A vegan who drives is a hypocrite."
"Every way of life involves deaths; the difference is one of degree."
"Harvests kill animals; vegans kill too." (which is H2)
The strongest version
"You step on ants. Your car kills mosquitoes. So you're a killer too."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Every human activity kills animals, including driving, walking and farming.
- P2Vegans also engage in these activities.
- P3If vegans accept killing animals in these activities, they can't condemn those who kill them for food.
- CSo the vegan condemnation is inconsistent.
P1 and P2 are true. The problem lies in P3: accepting accidental harms that are hard to avoid doesn't commit anyone to accepting intentional harms that are easy to avoid.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P3, which ignores the difference between causing something intentionally and causing it as a side effect.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument ignores two differences:
Feature Insects on the windshield Animals raised for food Intention None: a side effect Direct: the animal is raised to be killed Avoidability Hard: it would mean not getting around Easy: just choose another food Scale of avoidable harm Small Billions of animals a year - b
Where the argument breaks
1. Intention matters.
Throughout morality and law, causing harm on purpose is different from causing it as a side effect of a legitimate activity.
2. Avoidability matters.
Veganism asks us to avoid exploitation "as far as is possible and practicable" (D3). Not getting around isn't practicable; changing what's on the plate is.
3. The argument is the nirvana fallacy.
Since it's impossible to avoid all harm, it concludes that no harm needs to be avoided. But reducing avoidable harm is still better.
4. The question about insects leads to the boundary.
If the problem is knowing which animals feel, the discussion moves to A15, and it doesn't justify consuming animals who clearly do feel.
5. Vegans also try to reduce these harms.
Many avoid killing insects when they can. But the inconsistency of some people doesn't change what's right.
- 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" The demand is to avoid what's avoidable Our World in Data, animals slaughtered Billions of animals are slaughtered every year for food Shows the scale of intentional, avoidable harm - d
The strongest counter-reply: the difference is only one of degree
The most serious version says that whoever drives knows they'll kill insects, so the harm is foreseeable and accepted. The difference between that and buying meat would only be one of degree, not of kind.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Even if it were degree, degree matters.
Billions of animals raised and killed don't compare to insects hit by chance.
Foreseeing isn't aiming.
Knowing a side effect may occur is different from having the harm as one's goal.
The cost of avoiding differs.
Avoiding the first would mean giving up essential activities; avoiding the second means swapping foods.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Nirvana fallacy
Tu quoque
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Confusing intention with side effect
Biases
Motivated reasoning
The comparison serves to excuse change
General literature on motivated cognition
Collapse of compassion
Small, numerous animals stop seeming like individuals
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if I cause harm unintentionally, I may cause harm on purpose".
If it applied to…TrafficTap to see
Whoever once ran someone over by accident could do it on purpose
No one accepts this
If it applied to…The environmentTap to see
Since every activity pollutes a little, polluting on purpose would be acceptable
No one accepts this
If it applied to…WorkTap to see
Since accidents happen, causing them would be acceptable
No one accepts this
Contradictions
In traffic, at work, in law.
Which shows they recognize the difference.
Such as waste or pollution.
What the argument gets right
What is true
The question points to something real: living causes harm, including to animals, and no one can avoid it completely. It's also healthy to remember that veganism isn't purity and that insects may deserve moral consideration.
But
But the impossibility of avoiding all harm doesn't excuse us from avoiding the harm we can. The difference between the insect on the windshield and the chicken on the plate isn't one of purity; it's one of choice.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after