ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Pets and Animals»
  • Animal Rights & Welfare

The 10 Most Common Arguments against Vegetarianism or Veganism and My Response to Them: Part Five

Updated on March 23, 2012

This is the final part of a short series of articles I'm writing about the most common arguments meat eaters will level against veggies (I'll use the term 'veggie' from here on to describe vegetarians and vegans). Part One can be found here, part two here, and part three here, and part four here.

In short I hope to debunk some common myths and concerns about going veggie, and disprove some of the most common (and perhaps some of the less common) arguments against vegetarianism and veganism.

9. The Humans vs. Animals Argument

Some people seem to think that we are in some constant battle of survival with animals. They will say, 'well if it was a choice between a cat and a human which would you choose?' as though this kind of dilemma occurs daily. Of course this kind of thing hardly ever happens but I suppose it is an interesting question, especially as it is related to the subject of animal experimentation.

I would argue that we should choose the human. Personally I would argue that the human has much more to contribute intellectually and morally, many more hopes and aspirations, and much more to lose than a cat.

For some people this isn't enough. They say that we should choose the human, no matter what, and I can see the thinking behind that. What if we had to choose between a severely mentally disabled human and a healthy chimpanzee for example? We would still want to say the human. I do not have a good solution to this, and it does trouble me. All I can say is this kind of dilemma rarely happens.

I suppose the case where it might be said to happen fairly often is with animal experimentation, or vivisection as it is otherwise referred to. Personally I think most animal experimentation is certainly unnecessary - sometimes it is for cosmetic purposes and I think most people should be unhappy about cosmetic testing on animals. And sometimes it is carried out for no reason other than the researcher wanted to prove they were doing something useful. Watch 'Behind the Mask' if you want a more detailed explanation than I can give here.

However there may be the odd case where animal experimentation was necessary to save a human life. I'm told that is has been helpful for diabetes sufferers. Is this acceptable? Animal rights philosophers tend to fall into two camps here. Some take the utilitarian view that it is a greater good to save the human and therefore animal experimentation can sometimes be acceptable. Some however take the anti-discrimination view - it is wrong to experiment on humans even if it saves another human, so to be consistent we should also say that it is wrong to experiment on animals or else be a speciesist (kind of like a racist against non-human species). Personally I'm undecided, but I definitely think that animal experimentation should be greatly reduced and should be more transparent, open, and more strictly regulated. If eveyone could see exactly what was going on then I feel we could make a better judgement over what we should allow to continue.

At the end of the day all this is fairly inconsequential for the wider debate on vegetarianism/veganism. On the whole, it is not an 'us against them' battle for survival - we can get by perfectly well and healthily without resorting to killing or torturing animals.

Animals have hopes and fears, emotions, and feel pain and pleasure just like humans do. Ask yourself, if it's not okay to do it to a human, why is it okay to do it to an animal?
Animals have hopes and fears, emotions, and feel pain and pleasure just like humans do. Ask yourself, if it's not okay to do it to a human, why is it okay to do it to an animal? | Source

10. The Hitler/Peta Argument

Apparently Hitler was a vegetarian. Never mind that Gandhi, Einstein, Da Vinci, and many other great men and women were vegetarian, let's focus on Hitler. Atheists will probably be familiar with this argument. 'Hitler was an atheist, therefore atheism is wrong!' And guess what, 'Hitler was a vegetarian too, so vegetarianism is wrong!' Sometimes I despair. It should be obvious why this is an awful argument, a complete lack of sound reasoning, but this and variations of this argument come up often enough that it doesn't hurt to have a readymade response.

Some people just like to bring up Hitler to poke fun at vegetarians, or to try to dirty the vegetarian's image. Others may bring up the animal rights organisation PETA and point out all the bad things they have done as though that is a dagger in the heart of vegetarianism/veganism. (Seriously if you think I'm kidding, check out this video in which Penn and Teller spend half an hour having a go at PETA and then conclude that vegetarianism/veganism is wrong). Newsflash! Most vegetarians and vegans don't agree with everything PETA does!

Honestly, every group in history has had crazy fringe elements, I shouldn't have to point that out. The civil rights movement in the US had the Black Supremacists. The women's rights movement had the Suffragettes (we look back on the Suffragettes fondly but at the time they were considered radical and militant). So to say that some animal rights groups take things too far or are hypocritical, and then conclude that therefore all animal rights groups are wrong is just a horrendous logical mistake.

This is what's known as an ad hominem attack, an attack against the person, and these sorts of attacks are generally frowned upon in philosophical circles as they don't really get to the heart of the issues. You should try to argue against the arguments, not against the people.

Still, I guess there is a more genuine fear, a suggestion that by raising the status of animals you are somehow reducing the status of humans. On a very serious note, one of the main characterisitcs of genocide is a gradual dehumanisation of the victims, and this is something we must do everything to guard against.

But this is definitely not the goal for most veggies. We don't want to lower the status of humans, we merely want to raise the status of animals up to that of humans or at least a similar level. Is that such a terrible aim?

Penn and Teller missing the point.

Conclusion

So there you go, 10 arguments that you will come across as a vegetarian or vegan, and my response to them. This was really an itch that I needed to scratch! It's so frustrating when you hear the same arguments day after day, and you have to continue repeating yourself again and again. And with some of these responses there isn't a simple answer, which makes the job even harder.

Some may have noted that I haven't really given a detailed argument in favour of vegetarianism or veganism here, and perhaps that is something I will do at a later date, but I imagine you can get a fairly good idea of how such an argument might go. So, if you've got this far, then please, leave a comment, whether you agree or not! You never know, maybe one day someone will convince me of the error of my ways.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • tparham profile image

      timothy parham 2 years ago from Houston, Tx.

      being a vegetarian myself, I am familiar with the 10 arguments you raised and the very predictable responses from meat eaters and omnivores that want to carry on with business as usual!

    • profile image

      Lauren 2 years ago

      I get the argument from people that it's in the bible that humans should eat meat because God gave them to us. I'm not really religious, or at least I try my best to not associate myself with any religious title, so I don't value this as a logical argument. But no matter what I say to them, especially to this one specific friend if mine who is a pain in my ass, things that I think make perfect sense like "If God gave animals to humans for us to use, then they are a gift. When you get a gift from someone, do you rip it up and stomp on it and call it stupid just because it now belongs to you?", it never seems to be enough. I used to think that people only ate meat because they didn't really know how awful it was, and that if they had seen the same things I had they would be convinced that it was wrong too, but I've realized lately a lot of people just don't care. This really scares me and makes me sad for the world.

    • profile image

      Lana 4 years ago

      Hi, I have recetly written an article about veganism and I got a few negative comments. One of the arguments sounds like this: "If humans do not breed cows, pigs etc. these animals would not live. Isn't it better for them to live with some suffering and to be killed after 2-3 years rather than not to live at all?"

      Or similar: "If we now really liberate all animals and let them go, they would die of hunger. Isn't it cruel?"

      To me these arguments sound just totally absurd. But the fact is that I do not know how to respond to them. I am curious about your opinion.

      Thanks in advance.

      Greetings from Europe, Lana

    • profile image

      George 5 years ago

      Thanks for your efforts in producing this basic primer of responses. While the subtleties and nuances of these pro and con arguments require (at least) book-length treatment, your concise summaries should enable a veggie to go about as far as most carnivores care to think. My experience is that no one really wants to think through the logical consequences of their (unconscious) belief system. I'm glad that some people are capable of it, and that emotions recruit so many people to help end at least some nonhuman animal suffering. Thanks again!