I. Other uses: testing, clothing, entertainment

12 arguments in Part IND.

Underlying question: And beyond the plate?
Dominant error: Empirical and moral

Family of indirect arguments

This argument is about the usefulness of testing, clothing, entertainment and companion animals, 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 the defense of animals depended on showing that testing, clothing or entertainment with animals are useless, one useful use would be enough to justify them. But usefulness does not settle the question: no benefit justifies using people who did not consent, and the same holds for animals.

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

I. Other uses: testing, clothing, entertainment

Animal testing has saved millions of lives.

If you take medicine, you can't oppose testing.

Leather is just a byproduct of meat.

Sheep need to be shorn.

Bees make extra honey.

Zoos conserve species and educate.

Aquariums and dolphin parks are harmless.

Rodeos, bullfights and circuses are culture.

Horses like working and being ridden.

In sport fishing the fish is released.

Having a pet is exploitation too, and your cat eats meat.

Trophy hunting funds conservation.