J. Practicality, economy and society

14 arguments in Part IND.

Underlying question: Is it feasible and fair to ask this?
Dominant error: Moral (priority) and empirical

Family of indirect arguments

This argument is about cost, practicality and the economy, 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 for being cheap, practical or good for the economy, any situation in which exploitation were cheaper or created more jobs would justify it. No one accepts this reasoning when the victims are human: exploiting people was once profitable too.

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

J. Practicality, economy and society

Veganism is expensive.

Poor people have no access.

Farmers and slaughterhouse workers would lose their jobs.

Agriculture is the backbone of the economy.

What would we do with the animals if everyone went vegan?

There are more important human problems.

Veganism is a political ideology or a globalist agenda.

It's hard; I don't have time.

Vegan food is bland.

Meat tastes good.

I eat little meat; that's enough.

Eating out, traveling and parties become impossible.

Fishers and ranchers would lose their identity.

A vegan world is utopian.