A common strategy
Many animal advocates try to convince people with arguments that aren't about the animals. For example:
- "animal agriculture is bad for the environment";
- "meat is bad for your health";
- "eating animals isn't natural";
- "mistreating animals trains people to mistreat people";
- "the way meat is produced is disgusting."
The idea is: "For the animals, what matters is that people stop exploiting them, not why." And: "Since people are speciesist, these arguments are more convincing."
Different reasons, different results
The author shows that the reason does matter:
- Someone who stops eating meat for their health might start again if a "healthy" meat comes along.
- Someone who stops for the environment might accept "sustainable" exploitation, or even support killing wild animals in the name of nature.
- Only someone who stops because animals matter has a reason that holds in every situation.
The risks
- Suggesting that animals don't matter: if the problem is only health or the environment, then exploiting animals would be fine whenever it didn't harm humans.
- Strengthening ideas that work against animals: anthropocentrism and environmentalism hold values that clash with consideration for animals.
- Increasing exploitation: for example, switching from beef to chicken or fish "for health" leads to many more animals dying, because they're smaller animals.
- Forgetting wild animals: environmentalist arguments can lead people to reject helping them.
In short
- Health or environmental arguments seem to convince people faster.
- But different reasons lead to different results.
- Relying only on these arguments can even increase animal suffering.