What is the Best Argument Against Veganism?

[Bite Size Vegan]

what is the best argument against veganism? there is certainly a wide array of objections to the vegan lifestyle, but do any of them hold water? if you’re vegan or thinking about being vegan, chances are you’ve come up against more than one. perhaps you’ve even posed some of them yourself in the time leading up to being vegan. in this interview i ask vegan activist Gary Yourofsky in all his years of experience, what is the best argument against veganism? while legitimate questions and concerns from non-vegans can serve as teaching moments and are valuable opportunities for education, some anti-vegan arguments are purely baseless and made only to provoke. but for those honestly curious, well-intentioned individuals genuinely wanting to know if this way of life is possible, i will always have time and patience.

My Interview on Vegan Street: The Vegan Street Blog from the Vegan Feminist Agitator: 10 Questions: Vegan Rockstar Edition with Emily Moran Barwick of Bite Size Vegan
Get More Gary:
Gary Yourofsky Interview Playlist: Gary Yourofsky Interview Series - YouTube
ViV Area with Bonus Footage: ViV Area- Exclusive Content | Bite Size Vegan

 

[Dedalus]

"You Tube comments section - you are the bathroom wall of the internet." - Classic!

Nice job. I have to say that your videos along with Gary's Best Speech Ever, have personally, really helped me to articulate and debate the vegan argument. So thanks Em!

 

[prioritarian]

I found it interesting that Gary Yourofsky stated "Veg" not vegan. Don't take this the wrong way, but I am a strong supporter of the movement to replace "vegan" with "Veg" or veganish. (I support both terms and use them interchangeably.)

 

[Andy_T]

"But it tastes sooooo good and I am a selfish *******"

Only reason I accept.

 

[flyingsnail]

I found it interesting that Gary Yourofsky stated "Veg" not vegan. Don't take this the wrong way, but I am a strong supporter of the movement to replace "vegan" with "Veg" or veganish. (I support both terms and use them interchangeably.)

Considering what he has said about Vegetarians, etc....I doubt he is on the same page. Gary reminds me a lot of evangelical Christians and the fact that he couldn't give this answer a more thoughtful answer says a lot.

 

[Clueless Git]

"But it tastes sooooo good and I am a selfish *******"

Only reason I accept.

Lol!

That is the only truth you'll ever hear out of an omni's cake-hole.

Extending it into the realms of "but you taste soooo good and I'm a selfish *******" can be amusing, though.

That one works best in situations where there are no witnesses and you happen to be holding a fork and a bottle of ketchup.

 

[Bite Size Vegan]

"You Tube comments section - you are the bathroom wall of the internet." - Classic!

Nice job. I have to say that your videos along with Gary's Best Speech Ever, have personally, really helped me to articulate and debate the vegan argument. So thanks Em!

hehe so glad you enjoyed that little quip ;P and i'm even more glad that my videos have been of assistance! that's awesome

 

[prioritarian]

Considering what he has said about Vegetarians, etc....I doubt he is on the same page. Gary reminds me a lot of evangelical Christians and the fact that he couldn't give this answer a more thoughtful answer says a lot.

I think the term "Veg" is *designed* to be more inclusive (it can be used to refer to vegetarians, veganish folk, and vegans) so from my perspective that's progress. It's also my understanding that the term "Veg" was coined, in part, as a reaction to the lack of focus on animal rights/welfare in the vegan community.

Gary reminds me a lot of evangelical Christians and the fact that he couldn't give this answer a more thoughtful answer says a lot.

I have to agree. Being incapable of self-criticism is closely associated with epistemic closure or "truthiness".

But to answer the OP's question:
My best argument against mainstream veganism is that many vegans make little effort to avoid indirect "exploitation/cruelty". For example, plant-based products associated with exploitation are seen as more acceptable than animal-based products associated with negligible levels of exploitation.

 

[Andy_T]

It's also my understanding that the term "Veg" was coined, in part, as a reaction to the lack of focus on animal rights/welfare in the vegan community.

How is that?
If you call it "Veg" in order to also includes vegetarians, honey-eaters and whoever else, how does this increase the focus on animal rights?

And please note that animal rights and "animal welfare' are two very different things.

 

[prioritarian]

How is that?
If you call it "Veg" in order to also includes vegetarians, honey-eaters and whoever else, how does this increase the focus on animal rights?

I think there is increasing recognition that a focus on personal vegan purity has discouraged many from taking steps towards a more ethical lifestyle. In fact, it is major animal welfare groups that have led the charge towards use of more inclusive and less judgemental terms:

For example:

ChooseVeg.com: A Guide to Vegetarian and Vegan Living

And please note that animal rights and "animal welfare' are two very different things.

I respectfully disagree.

 

[Scorpius]

And please note that animal rights and "animal welfare' are two very different things.

This is an intriguing concept. You should start a thread on it!!

 

[flyingsnail]

I think the term "Veg" is *designed* to be more inclusive (it can be used to refer to vegetarians, veganish folk, and vegans) so from my perspective that's progress. It's also my understanding that the term "Veg" was coined, in part, as a reaction to the lack of focus on animal rights/welfare in the vegan community.

I think people use the term for different reasons, given Gary's point of view I think he just using it as a hip reference to vegan.

 

[SuicideBlonde]

 

[prioritarian]

I think people use the term for different reasons, given Gary's point of view I think he just using it as a hip reference to vegan.

You are probably right. I was hoping Gary had finally softened his...erm...zeal but this quote form his web site suggests otherwise:

Creating and re-creating plant and animal life is obscene and blasphemous.

:rollseyes:

 

[Tom L.]

......And please note that animal rights and "animal welfare' are two very different things.

I respectfully disagree.

In theory, they may well be the same. But most of what I've seen marketed as "animal welfare" is a laughable attempt to sugarcoat animal exploitation. Or, rather, it would be laughable, except that the way animals are usually treated is anything but funny. Specifically: I usually see "animal welfare" as meaning inherently contradictory things like "happy meat", "humane slaughter regulations", "ethical game harvesting", etc. When people refer to "animal rights", I've usually seen it indicating that the animals in question have a measure of inherent, non-negotiable worth... for themselves... independent from whether or not someone wants to use those animals for something.

I might be oversimplifying things a bit, and I'm pretty sure some "animal welfarists" genuinely care about animals as individuals, but I think that what I've described above is, for the most part, true. "Animal Welfare" has largely come to have little benefit to animals, even if it once might have meant something.

 

[Clueless Git]

And please note that animal rights and "animal welfare' are two very different things.

Aye,

A 'right' is not a right if it is not attached to reciprocal responsibilities.

E.g. Our 'right' not have our junk nicked by others is attached to the reciprocal responsibility not to nick other peeps stuff ourselves. If we don't honour our reciprocal responsibilities we lose our rights: Fines, confiscations, imprisonment, etc.

Similarly even the right to life itself is attached to the reciprocal responsibility not to go around hatcheting OAP's and throwing small children into industrial meat grinders and stuff like that.

If it is true that only a total num-nutz would believe animals to be capable of understanding reciprocal responsibilities then it is equaly true that only a total num-nutz would believe that animals can have rights.

 

[Clueless Git]

In theory, they may well be the same.

Yes, no and kinda ...

It would be very unlikely that granting a thing rights is not motivated by an interest in that things welfare.

Welfare is no way dependent on rights though.

My cat will vouch for this.

My denying her any rights whatsoever does not make my commitment to her welfare anything less than absolute.

 

[Clueless Git]

For those who see protection under law as being inextricably linked to rights, btw ...

There are many things, both living and inert, that have significant protection under law despite having no rights.

Endangered species, sites of exceptional scientific/beautific interest and the manky old tree at the bottom of my dad's garden are some examples that spring readily to mind.

 

[Andy_T]

Similarly even the right to life itself is attached to the reciprocal responsibility not to go around hatcheting OAP's and throwing small children into industrial meat grinders and stuff like that.

If it is true that only a total num-nutz would believe animals to be capable of understanding reciprocal responsibilities then it is equaly true that only a total num-nutz would believe that animals can have rights.

That is exactly not the point I wanted to make.

To give another example, even a mentally handicapped person or a toddler who does not "understand" which rights of others he has to respect, is in our society entitled to certain "Human Rights", e.g the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Under a "welfare" standpoint, there is no such "right to live", welfarists rather try to make sure that for animals, their (necessary) deaths should be as painless as possible. Quite a difference for me.

And no, most animal rights activists (although that is sometimes wrongly used as example) do not campaign for cows' right to freely express their opinions or horses' right to get married, but rather the rights to life and freedom from slavery.

 

[Moll Flanders]

I think the supposed health benefits aspect of veganism is the weakest argument and it's annoying as most non-vegans probably think of weight loss/ healthy eating when they think of vegans.

There's No Health Argument for Veganism | Ed Coffin