The Claim That Animal Advocates Are Imposing Their Lifestyle

Original text Luciano Carlos Cunha · Volume IV, p. 71 of the PDF edition · English translation

An objection frequently raised against guaranteeing legal rights for animals is the claim that this would be imposing on people, since it would force them to respect animals (for example, exploiting animals would then be prohibited).

According to this objection, animal advocates have the right to present arguments in defense of their position, but each person should have the right to choose whether or not to accept them of their own free will, without a law forcing them to.

This argument has two fundamental problems, which we will discuss below.

The first problem is that it is speciesist, since its proponents accept legal rights for humans. So much so that the argument maintains that those who want to exploit animals should have their right to do so guaranteed.

Moreover, this argument would be widely repudiated if the victims were human. Imagine, for example, someone arguing that people should be free to accept or not accept the rule against murdering humans, without a law forcing them to, since that would be imposing on people. Likewise, such an argument would be strongly repudiated if we did not know whether we would be born as humans or as nonhuman animals. Therefore, this argument also fails the impartiality test.

The second problem is that the argument is self-refuting, since it maintains that there should be a legal right protecting individuals against impositions, and at the same time maintains that there should be a legal right to impose on nonhuman animals, including causing them extreme suffering and death. Thus, despite what they say, the proponents of this objection are not against impositions. Quite the contrary: what they are defending is a supposed right to impose extreme things on nonhuman animals. But obviously it makes no sense to defend something like this by claiming that imposing on others is wrong. For this reason, the argument is self-refuting.

Sometimes this argument takes a more extreme form, claiming that the mere fact of arguing against animal exploitation is already wrong, since it would be "imposing a lifestyle on others."

Besides having the same problems as the previous argument, this argument is an extreme example of arbitrariness. On the one hand, the mere fact of presenting arguments in favor of animals is considered an unjustified imposition. On the other, literally imposing a life of extreme suffering, and death as well, on an enormous number of individuals is not even considered an imposition, because its victims are nonhuman animals.

Needless to say, if the same accusation were made regarding practices whose victims are human, it would immediately be seen how dishonest it is. It is only because of the overwhelming prevalence of speciesism that accusations of this kind arise when the victims are nonhuman animals.

The fact that there are people who call themselves vegan and adhere to this point of view, saying things like "I'm vegan, but anyone who wants to exploit animals should have their right to do so guaranteed, because no one should impose anything on anyone," is a sign of how present speciesism is even within the so-called vegan movement. If the victims were human, it would immediately be seen how contradictory it is to maintain, at the same time, that we have no right to impose anything on anyone and that anyone who wants to impose something on someone should have their right to do so guaranteed. Under the mask of tolerance, what they are in fact defending is that it is wrong to oppose those who want to exploit animals, and that it is right to impose suffering and death on nonhuman animals.

In short, although these people do not consume animals, they hold a view about animals that is exactly the same as the view of those who consume animals and think it is right to do so: they believe there is a right to cause suffering and death to animals. The only difference is that they choose not to consume them. But that is exactly how those who consume animals and think it is right think (since they do not maintain that there is an obligation to consume animals; they maintain only that it is permissible to do so). In short, this shows that, unfortunately, not everyone who is vegan has rejected speciesism.