How To Argue With Vegans: An Analysis of Anti-vegan Arguments (Vegan Philosophy Book 1)

by Benny Malone

‘With a third of all food production lost via leaky supply chains or spoilage, food loss is a key contributor to global food insecurity. Demand for resource-intensive animal-based food further limits food availability. In this paper, we show that plant-based replacements for each of the major animal categories in the United States (beef, pork, dairy, poultry, and eggs) can produce twofold to 20-fold more nutritionally similar food per unit cropland. Replacing all animal-based items with plant-based replacement diets can add enough food to feed 350 million additional people, more than the expected benefits of eliminating all supply chain food loss.’

To graze farmed ruminants, staggering amounts of land is used for incredibly little return. For example, about 60% of the world's agricultural land is used for "beef," which only accounts for less than 5% of protein and 2% of calories worldwide (Union of Concerned Scientists).

People do however argue that veganism would mean a mass ‘cull’ of animals and I have seen this referred to as a ‘genocide’ of animals. Clearly they think there would be one final slaughter of all animals and they object to this strongly. It is strange then that they don’t object to this ‘final’ slaughter being repeated in perpetuity. Why should the finality of a mass slaughter be so abhorrent but a continual cycle of it receive such enthusiastic support? It’s hard to imagine that this is actually a genuine concern of those supporting a continuous cycle of slaughter. Veganism is merely breaking this cycle.

‘The position that we hold — the abolitionists position — is often said to be “extreme,” and those of us who hold it are said to be “extremists.” The unspoken suggestions are that extreme positions cannot be right, and that extremists must be wrong. But I am an extremist when it comes to rape — I am against it all the time. I am an extremist when it comes to child abuse — I am against it all the time. I am an extremist when it comes to sexual discrimination, racial discrimination — I am against it all the time. I am an extremist when it comes to abuse of the elderly — I am against it all the time.’

We must bear in mind that vegans and non-vegans are starting from different standpoints and perspectives. Vegans will most often be thinking about animals as victims of animal exploitation and slaughter. So when an anti-vegan is offering up an argument it is seen as a justification for animal use and slaughter when alternatives and avoidance of it is possible. Saying you like the taste of bacon therefore immediately seems extremely callous when it is viewed from the perspective of the exploitation confinement and slaughter this will cause to an animal, in this case gas chamber suffocation for pigs, regarded as the most ‘humane’ method. Most anti-vegans say ‘mmm, bacon’ not ‘mmm, animal slaughter’.

Non-vegans tend to start from their own perspective of consumer choice. Whereas vegans are looking at the whole life-cycle of an ‘animal product’, non-vegans will concentrate on the end-product only, not wanting to consider the full life-cycle if possible. The source of their consternation with vegans is therefore wondering why they are being questioned about just another ingredient or a menu item. Starting from these different perspectives, vegans and non-vegans are often talking past each other. One side is looking at any excuse or argument as a direct justification for animal slaughter. Non-vegans are thinking they don’t need to justify a menu choice or a shopping trip.

If someone was arguing for human rights and was detailing how sweatshops exploit workers it would be extremely callous for someone to comment that they didn’t care, they just like the end product too much. This is exactly what we see with arguments from taste however when it comes to animal rights.

In terms of the variables of veganism it is whether animals are used, exploited and slaughtered which is what we find relevant. Animals are worthy of moral consideration because they are sentient. Other variables are not morally relevant because sentience is the determining factor on whether causing pain would be wrong.

If we say our aim is to improve things then we should all be seeking to have the variables equalise or improve on the ‘vegan side’ so that price, availability, transport emissions etc are better than on the animal-based food side. This is already true when it comes to all variables, so whilst not perfect, plant-based choices are superior but there is always room for improvement.

It’s strange that this is the criticism of plant foods when the same amount of processing applies to those animal foods that vegans are accused of mimicking. A burger or sausage made from animals bears as little resemblance to the animals it came from as a burger or sausage made from plants resemble the original plant it came from. Why the double standard?

By looking at which variables are actually relevant most anti-vegan arguments are rendered completely insensible. Why don’t slaughterhouse workers use their canine teeth? It’s because having those teeth is irrelevant to their work? Now you are starting to get it.

Although the left will say they are against oppression and hierarchy they make an exception for the billions of land animals and trillions of marine animals that are slaughtered each year. Human supremacy comes in many forms and may be subtler than the gaudy displays of hyper masculinity and patriotism from the right but it is there nonetheless.

Any instances of racism and classism must be taken seriously. There is however nothing inherently racist or classist about veganism. Vegans come from all races and to characterise veganism as a ‘White’ thing erases the work of BIPOC vegans and those that are working to make veganism more accessible in their communities through education and practical help.

Slaughterhouse workers are mysteriously left out of viral Twitter posts that target unethical farming practices as is the environmental racism of where pig farms are located. Leaving out a group of marginalized and oppressed beings – the other animals that are exploited and slaughtered by humans - is not progressive. Total liberation without inclusion of veganism is incomplete.

‘It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps, the faculty for discourse?...the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?’

Sentience is the relevant criteria because it matters morally if a being can be harmed and caused pain. If we examine the reason why it is wrong to torture a dog it is not any of the many characteristics of a dog we can list such as the species they belong to or that they have a certain type of body shape. If it is refined down to the most fundamental level of why it is wrong it is because dogs are sentient – torturing them causes them pain.

In fact laws such as Customary Farming Exemptions are a tacit acknowledgement of sentience as the morally relevant criteria. They recognise that an extraordinary exception must be made in order to exploit these animals. Otherwise it would be classed as cruelty under law.

Think of it this way, unless the whole population is vegan there is going to be only a certain percentage able to afford or have access to the ethical omnivore standard. Therefore even if their model is one of suffering reduction across the board and elimination of ‘factory farming’ then the model the rest of the population would be required to follow to allow their overall utilitarian calculation is a vegan one. If 99% of products currently come from factory farms and replacing that demand is impossible – this is why farming intensified in the first place, then the scaled back model can only be followed by either a small percentage or overall production is capped unless it meets their standards.

How do Indigenous people feel about being used in such a way to justify animal agriculture and the exploitation and slaughter of species that are bred, confined and killed? The question of Indigenous practices is a separate one to the consumption habits of those not in that situation. Yet posts on Twitter go viral and are liked and shared by numbers of people who can’t possibly be in those circumstances unless census figures for the Arctic Circle are wildly inaccurate. There is the question of erasing the existence of Indigenous vegans also of which there are many who recognise that once they are in different circumstances the way they choose to live is to be vegan. Climate change which is exacerbated by animal agriculture also adds the final insult in that it endangers the very people living and working in these areas. Climate change disproportionately affects people in developing countries and regions like the Arctic where there are more Indigenous people in those positions being argued about.

The no ethical consumption under capitalism operates as an escape hatch now. Originally it was meant as a way to offer support for people who are forced to make difficult choices despite their best efforts to avoid supporting unethical practices. For example, despite being vegan, our taxes go towards subsidies for animal agriculture. The same is true for our taxes going towards wars and other things we may object to. The idea is meant to be that despite our best personal efforts some things are unfortunately and regrettably unavoidable at present until there is system change. The key part is ‘despite our best efforts’

When Matheny recalculates using Davis’ formula he finds that “to obtain the 20 kilograms of protein per year recommended for adults, a vegan would kill 0.3 wild animals annually, a lacto-vegetarian would kill 0.39 wild animals, while a Davis-style omnivore would kill 1.5 wild animals. Thus, correcting for Davis’s math, we see that a vegan population would kill the fewest number of wild animals, followed closely by a lacto-vegetarian population.”

In comparing the cultivation of animals versus plants, there is a clear difference in magnitude of energy efficiency. Edible kilocalories produced from kilocalories of energy required for cultivation are: 18.1% for chicken, 6.7% for grass-fed beef, 5.7% for farmed salmon, and 0.9% for shrimp. In contrast, potatoes yield 123%, corn produce 250%, and soy results in 415% of input calories converted to calories able to be utilized by humans. This disparity in efficiency reflects the reduction in production from moving up trophic levels. Thus, it is more energetically efficient to form a diet from lower trophic levels. (16)

‘About 85 percent of the world’s soybeans are processed, or "crushed," annually into soybean meal and oil. Approximately 98 percent of the soybean meal that is crushed is further processed into animal feed with the balance used to make soy flour and proteins.

The key takeaway is that any issues pointed to in plant agriculture are only magnified exponentially if you are using more plant agriculture to feed animals who are fed and slaughtered. (29)

Vegans aren’t asking anyone to do anything they aren’t doing themselves or beyond reasonable levels of achievability.

A society thinks veganism is extreme in proportion to how normalised violence against animals has become.

Calling veganism something else doesn’t make problems with the vegan label disappear. If we still need a descriptor to describe and promote a certain philosophy it is going to come up against the same difficulties no matter what the chosen label or the areas it covers.