Home / L. Attacks on veganism and vegans / Part IND
"You use a phone, so you're a hypocrite."
the inconsistency of someone defending an idea doesn't make the idea false. The argument attacks the person and leaves the question untouched. Besides, veganism never promised purity: its own definition speaks of avoiding exploitation "as far as is possible and practicable". Doing what's possible in an imperfect world isn't hypocrisy; hypocrisy would be demanding of others what you don't even try to do.
Short answer
Even if I were inconsistent, that wouldn't make what I'm saying false: the animal suffers just the same, whoever points it out. And veganism never promised purity: the Vegan Society's definition speaks of avoiding exploitation "as far as is possible and practicable". There's no phone today without impact, but there is a lunch without animals. Doing what's possible isn't hypocrisy; it's what we expect of anyone with a principle.
For children
Imagine a classmate says "you shouldn't drop litter", and the next day accidentally drops a piece of paper. Does that mean dropping litter has become right? No. The dropped paper shows they make mistakes sometimes, like everyone, but the rule is still right. It's the same with animals: no one can be perfect, but that doesn't make it right to hurt them.
"If I were perfect, would you stop eating meat?"
Como pode aparecer
"You use a phone, so you're a hypocrite."
"You drive a car."
"What about your car tires, with animal fat in them?"
"Your phone has minerals mined by children."
"A vegan posting from an iPhone."
"How many mice died for your soy?" (which is H2)
"People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."
"No one who takes part in harmful supply chains has standing to condemn others."
"No vegan is 100% vegan." (which is L5)
The strongest version
"You use a phone made with minerals mined by children, you drive a car, and you eat plants harvested by machines that kill animals. What right do you have to lecture me?"
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1Whoever asserts a moral principle should follow it consistently.
- P2Vegans also take part in practices that harm animals and humans.
- P3Whoever doesn't follow their own principle has no authority to demand it of others.
- CSo vegan criticism needn't be taken seriously.
P2 is partly true: no one lives without causing some harm in a complex economy. The problem lies in P3 and the conclusion.
The argument is invalid in the form it's usually used. From the inconsistency of the speaker it doesn't follow that what they say is false. This is the classic error of tu quoque ("you too").
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument shifts the subject from the question to the person. There are two different questions:
Question About what What the tu quoque answers Is eating animals wrong? The practice Nothing Is the critic consistent? The person Perhaps not, but that doesn't change the first answer Tu quoque is a form of ad hominem: instead of assessing the argument, it points to the conduct of whoever makes it. A doctor who smokes and says smoking is harmful is right, though inconsistent.
- b
Where the argument breaks
1. The truth doesn't depend on who says it.
If eating animals causes avoidable harm, that's true whether the criticism comes from a perfect vegan, an inconsistent one or someone who still eats meat. The messenger's conduct doesn't change the animal's condition.
2. Veganism doesn't promise purity.
The Vegan Society's definition, in use since 1988, describes veganism as a philosophy that seeks to exclude, "as far as is possible and practicable", all forms of exploitation of and cruelty to animals. The criterion was never perfection, but possible effort.
3. Possible and practicable aren't the same for everything.
For most people today there's no phone free of minerals from problematic supply chains: in 2016, Amnesty International documented child labor in mining the cobalt used in phone batteries. But for most people there is a meal without animals. Comparing a choice without an alternative to a choice with one is a false equivalence.
4. Hypocrisy is something else.
A hypocrite is someone who demands of others what they don't try to do, or pretends to follow a principle they don't. Someone who recognizes their limits and does what they can is being consistent with a realistic principle, not hypocritical.
5. Taken seriously, the argument silences everyone.
Since no one is perfectly consistent, no one could criticize any injustice. Those who use the tu quoque against vegans also use phones, and still criticize other things.
6. Where the objection holds, it asks for more, not less.
If the problem with the phone is child labor, the consistent conclusion is to care about that too, not to stop caring about animals. The argument uses one harm to justify another.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note The Vegan Society, definition of veganism Veganism seeks to exclude, "as far as is possible and practicable", exploitation of and cruelty to animals The official definition; current version in use since 1988 Amnesty International and Afrewatch, *This is what we die for* (2016) Documents child labor in cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, used in batteries for phones and electric cars Checked from summaries and coverage of the report - d
The strongest counter-reply: it's not about logic, it's about credibility
The most serious version grants that the tu quoque refutes nothing. But it says credibility matters in practice: whoever preaches what they don't practice loses listeners' trust, and a movement that asks a lot of others should be exemplary. Besides, vegans sometimes talk as if they were free of all harm, and it's fair to point out when that isn't true.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Credibility affects persuasion, not truth.
It may be harder to listen to someone inconsistent, but what they say is still true or false on its own merits.
The criticism of purity talk is right, and has already been made.
Vegans who present themselves as perfect are wrong, and this guide says so in the bad arguments vegans use. But correcting the rhetoric doesn't change the question about the animals.
Demanding a perfect example is demanding the impossible.
No justice movement would ever have started if only perfect people could speak.
The counter-reply applies to whoever uses it.
If inconsistency removes the standing to criticize, someone who eats meat and says they love animals (E8) loses it too.
- f
Back to the moral question
Pointing out the speaker's inconsistency doesn't answer what was said. Even if every vegan were a hypocrite, the question would remain the same: is it fair to make animals suffer and die when we don't need to?
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Tu quoque
Ad hominem
False equivalence
Nirvana fallacy
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Using one harm to justify another
Biases
Attacking the messenger
Discrediting the speaker eases the pressure of what's said
Moral licensing
Pointing out others' flaws makes one's own conduct seem acceptable
Meat paradox
The tension between loving animals and eating them is eased by putting down whoever raises it
Identity-protective cognition
The criticism is felt as an attack on one's own group
Messenger effect
The speaker's supposed inconsistency becomes a reason to ignore what they say
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "whoever isn't perfectly consistent can't criticize".
If it applied to…Doctors who smokeTap to see
They couldn't warn about cigarettes
The warning is still correct
If it applied to…Activists against child laborTap to see
They couldn't denounce it, because they use phones
The argument would silence the very cause it cites
If it applied to…Any moral criticismTap to see
No one could criticize anything, because no one is perfect
Every moral reform would have been impossible
If it applied to…Whoever uses the argumentTap to see
They couldn't criticize anyone either
The principle turns against whoever uses it
Contradictions
People who use the argument also denounce corruption, violence or inequality, without considering themselves hypocrites.
The phone's harm appears only as ammunition against vegans, not as a reason to change.
We listen to doctors who smoke, teachers who make mistakes and parents who don't follow everything they teach.
The same standard is never applied to those who champion other causes.
If there were an answer to the question, there'd be no need to bring up the phone.
What the argument gets right
What is true
There's something fair here. Vegans also cause harm, and there's no way to live in a complex economy without taking part in some problematic supply chain. When someone talks as if they were above that, the criticism holds, and humility is a virtue the movement needs to cultivate. It's also true that consistency matters: whoever defends a principle should try to live it.
But
But pointing out someone's flaw doesn't answer the question. The animal suffers just the same, and no one needs to be perfect to recognize it. The consistency that can be asked for is doing what's possible, and no longer eating animals is, for most people, within reach today.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after