Home / F. Edge cases and hypotheticals / Part DIR
"You also kill mosquitoes and rats at home."
self-defense and real conflict are different from raising animals to eat. A mosquito that transmits dengue or malaria, or a rat that contaminates food, poses a concrete threat; a pig in a shed threatens no one. Even in cases of conflict, animal ethics asks us to prefer non-lethal methods when possible. And if killing mosquitoes were inconsistent, that would be a problem for whoever kills mosquitoes, not a justification for raising and slaughtering billions of animals.
Short answer
Protecting yourself from a mosquito that carries disease, or from rats that contaminate food, is self-defense against a real threat. Raising an animal to eat isn't: they threaten no one. Even in these cases of conflict, animal ethics asks us to use non-lethal methods when possible, such as screens, repellents and sealing gaps. And if someone were inconsistent about mosquitoes, that wouldn't make it acceptable to raise and slaughter billions of animals.
For children
If a mosquito can give you a disease, keeping it away is protecting yourself. That's different from raising a little pig in a cramped place just to eat it later. In one case, we defend ourselves; in the other, we make the animal be born to die. And when we can, the best thing is to keep the critters away without killing them.
"Was the pig who became bacon threatening anyone?"
Como pode aparecer
"You also kill mosquitoes and rats at home."
"You use insect repellent."
"If there's a cockroach, you kill it."
"A vegan who uses rat poison is a hypocrite."
"Accepting pest control shows vegans aren't consistent."
"You use a phone, so you're a hypocrite." (which is L4)
The strongest version
"You use insect repellent. If there's a cockroach, you kill it. So you can't say anything."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Vegans also kill animals, such as mosquitoes, cockroaches and rats, when they cause problems.
- P2This shows they accept killing animals for human interests.
- P3Eating meat also serves a human interest.
- CSo vegans can't condemn meat eaters without being inconsistent.
P1 is true in many cases. The problem lies in P2 and P3: the interest in not catching a disease or not having one's home contaminated is very different from the interest in a flavor.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P3, which equates interests of very different weights.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument equates very different situations:
Situation Is there a threat? Alternatives Kind of harm Disease-carrying mosquito Yes, to health Screens, repellents, removing breeding sites Defense Rats in the house Yes, to health and food Sealing gaps, live-catch traps Defense Pig raised for slaughter No Many: other foods Exploitation - b
Where the argument breaks
1. Self-defense is a recognized exception.
Every ethics accepts defense against real threats, including between humans. That doesn't make it acceptable to harm those who threaten no one.
2. The interests have different weights.
Avoiding dengue or contamination is a serious interest; the taste of meat is a lesser interest that can be met in other ways (J11).
3. Animal ethics asks for non-lethal methods.
Prevention, screens, repellents and sealing gaps are preferable to killing. Animal advocates tend to use these methods.
4. Inconsistency doesn't change what's right.
If someone kills mosquitoes without need, that's their problem, not permission for everyone to cause more harm. This is the tu quoque fallacy.
5. The logic is different.
Raising animals for food brings billions of animals into existence every year precisely so they can die. Pest control at home responds to a concrete threat that already exists, and even so should prefer prevention and non-lethal methods.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Our World in Data, animals slaughtered Billions of animals are slaughtered every year for food Shows the difference in scale The Vegan Society, definition of veganism Veganism seeks to exclude exploitation "as far as is possible and practicable" Defense against a real threat isn't exploitation - d
The strongest counter-reply: comfort is also an interest
The most serious version says vegans often kill cockroaches or mosquitoes not because of a real threat, but because they're a nuisance, and that this would be an interest as trivial as taste.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
If it's because of a nuisance, it's wrong too.
The criticism hits the behavior, not the principle.
It doesn't justify meat.
That someone kills a cockroach because it's a nuisance doesn't make raising billions of animals acceptable.
Consistency points toward more care.
The right conclusion is to treat all animals better, not worse.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Tu quoque
False analogy
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Interests of different weights treated as equal
Biases
Motivated reasoning
The comparison serves to excuse change
General literature on motivated cognition
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if I kill an animal who threatens me, I may kill animals who don't threaten me".
If it applied to…Self-defense between humansTap to see
Whoever defended themselves could attack others
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Aggressive dogsTap to see
If one dog attacks, all dogs could be killed
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Wild animalsTap to see
If one snake is a threat, all snakes could be hunted
Contrary to wildlife protection laws
Contradictions
And doesn't apply that here.
The comparison doesn't convince even the person making it.
Many people shoo insects away instead of killing them.
What the argument gets right
What is true
The argument points to a real issue: conflicts with animals exist, and killing pests also involves beings who may feel. Animal advocates shouldn't pretend this is irrelevant, and should prefer non-lethal methods whenever possible.
But
But self-defense against a real threat is different from raising animals to eat. The first case is a hard conflict; the second is a choice that can be avoided.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after