N. Ex-vegans: why I gave up

6 arguments in Part IND.

Underlying question: Does having given up change what is right?
Dominant error: Logical and moral (from personal experience to a moral conclusion)

Family of indirect arguments

This argument is about the experience of someone who tried to be vegan and gave up, 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 depended on being easy for everyone, one person's difficulty would be enough to make it stop counting. But someone's difficulty, which deserves to be heard and helped, doesn't change what happens to the animals: it calls for practical support, not a new moral conclusion.

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

N. Ex-vegans: why I gave up

I stopped being vegan because I started feeling unwell

I stopped being vegan because I'm at a different stage of life

Being vegan limited me when eating at my relatives' homes

Being vegan is hard if you travel a lot

I admire you, but I can't do it

I used to be vegan; I know what I'm talking about