The Debate on Animal Exploitation

Exploited animals, especially those used for food, live in confinement, suffer disease, mutilation, and transport, and are killed in slaughterhouses or by fishing in ways we would never accept for humans; there is no justification for this double standard.

Animal exploitation is unjust because it violates the principle of equal consideration and fails the impartiality test; that's why it stays unjust even if it's sustainable, small-scale, painless at slaughter, or outside capitalism.

Veganism is the position of avoiding harm to animals out of respect for them, refusing the products and services of exploitation; besides reducing demand, it exposes the injustice animals suffer.

The plant objection fails: plants are alive, but without a centralized nervous system there's no evidence that they're sentient; and if they were, eating animals would kill even more plants, and what would follow is fruitarianism, not eating everything.

In none of the senses of “natural” (possibility, instinct, what animals do, the food chain) does eating meat being natural show that it's justifiable; and the reply “it isn't natural” makes the same mistake.

Saying that consuming animals frees them from lives of suffering is an excuse: in exploitation, consumption is what causes animals to be born to suffer; and those who use it don't apply it to humans or try to reduce births.

The “replaceability defense” says consuming animals benefits them by bringing them into existence; it doesn't apply to most cases, it gives no right to cause harm, and even by the overall balance it tends to produce a very negative result.

What we would do on a desert island or in a burning house doesn't justify everyday consumption of animals: what we would do isn't necessarily right, and actions in extreme situations don't extend to ordinary ones.

Consuming animal products isn't necessary for good health: nutrition bodies in several countries recognize that a well-planned vegan diet is adequate at every stage of life.

Veganism isn't just for the rich: the staple foods of a vegan diet (rice, beans, vegetables, fruit) are among the cheapest; expensive processed vegan products aren't necessary, and more demand would bring prices down.

If the world went vegan, there wouldn't be a surplus of domesticated animals: they're born through forced breeding to meet demand, and less demand would gradually mean fewer births.

Saying veganism would ruin the economy and jobs fails ethically (profit doesn't justify harming victims) and factually (demand for vegan products also creates jobs, and the transition is gradual).

Veganism has a practical impact: even without eliminating every contribution to exploitation, each person reduces demand, and the growth of exploitation doesn't show a lack of impact, only that it must be compared with what would happen without vegans.

The claim that veganism kills more animals through agriculture has no evidence behind it and ignores that farmed animals eat far more crops; besides, only in a world that considers animals will anyone make the effort to reduce indirect deaths.

The idea that eating animals preserves domesticated species assumes that species matter in themselves, that they matter more than sentient beings, and that they would disappear without consumption; the first is controversial, the second can be rejected, and the third is false.

“Humans first, animals later” fails: each person makes a difference to the animals affected, there's no proof that most people would reject the arguments, and it may be disguised speciesism.

Animal exploitation isn't the result of laws being broken: it's legal. Animals have the legal status of property, which prevents meaningful protection; changing it requires changing the way people see them.

Saying that animal protection laws would be “imposing a lifestyle” is self-refuting: it defends a right against impositions and, at the same time, the right to impose suffering and death on animals.

There's growing evidence of sentience in insects, and their exploitation (for feed, food, silk, dye) already kills trillions a year in very bad conditions; given the number of victims, it's one of the most important problems.

The arguments from necessity and effectiveness don't justify animal experimentation; giving more weight to humans doesn't hold up, nor does the position “Kantianism for humans, utilitarianism for animals”; we can keep doing research without using animals.