Reply to Criticism: Addressing Common Arguments Against Veganism/vegetarianism
Someone commented on my blog and raised some strong points against my views on veganism. I really appreciate that because healthy debate is the only way we can sharpen our understanding. I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I do want to respond to some of the points made systematically.
(the attached images are the comments I got on my post- Why eating meat is wrong: an Inquiry into Food Habits, Culture and Traditions)
1. Evolution and Human Superiority
S/he argued that humans became superior because of evolution, so naturally, we have privileges over other species.
My answer: Yes, evolution gave us intelligence, but with intelligence comes responsibility. Just because we can dominate, doesn’t mean we should. For example, nuclear bombs are also a product of human evolution but does that justify using them freely? Superiority should mean compassion, not exploitation.
2. Alternatives and Affordability
Another point that s/he made was that poor people can’t afford a vegan lifestyle, eggs are cheaper, and supplements cost a lot.
My answer: I agree that affordability is a real issue. But veganism doesn’t have to mean expensive almond milk or oats from fancy stores. A vegan diet in India can be built on dal, chawal, roti, seasonal sabzi, chana, millets, and groundnuts...all cheap and accessible. And to be clear, I am not blaming the majdoor for eating eggs...my argument is directed towards those of us who have choices and still pick cruelty when we can avoid it.
3. Compassion and Extinction
S/he said that most animals went extinct not because we ate them, but because we destroyed their habitats.
My answer: That’s true, but let’s not forget that industrial meat production is one of the biggest reasons for deforestation, water scarcity, and climate change. Forests are cut to grow animal feed and to provide grazing land. So, meat eating is not just about individual cruelty, it’s tied to large-scale environmental destruction too.
And you mentioned about mosquitoes and asked if we should also show compassion to them. I think this is where the difference between necessity and choice comes in. Mosquitoes spread diseases like malaria and dengue that can literally kill us..so when we defend ourselves against them, it is a matter of survival. But eating chicken, fish, or mutton is not about survival today...it is a choice of taste. If we had no other food options, like in ancient times...then maybe it was understandable. But today, when we have plenty of plant-based alternatives that don’t harm us and still meet our nutrition needs, killing animals is not a necessity.
So the point is not whether we kill any living being or not ...we inevitably harm some tiny organisms in farming too. My point is that do we minimize harm where we can? For mosquitoes, it is unavoidable for survival. For meat, it is avoidable...it’s a lifestyle choice. That is why compassion towards chickens, cows, goats, and pigs is not the same as compassion towards mosquitoes.
4. Hygienic Slaughterhouses
It mentioned that modern slaughterhouses are super hygienic, clean, and state-of-the-art.
My answer: I don’t doubt that they may be hygienic for humans. But the question is not hygiene, the question is ethics. A cleanly polished prison is still a prison. A “hygienic” killing is still killing. The issue is whether we should take a life when we don’t need to.
5. Health and Diet
Vegan diets make people obese and meat helps in weight loss.
My answer: Actually, obesity comes from processed foods, whether plant-based or animal-based. A whole-food vegan diet (fruits, vegetables, legumes, whole grains, nuts, seeds) is scientifically proven to reduce diabetes, cholesterol, and heart disease. It’s not about vegan vs meat, it’s about natural vs ultra-processed.
6. Religion and Historical Figures
One strong point raised was that great figures like Jesus, Muhammad, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther, etc., were not vegans. Does that mean they were inhumane?
My answer: Of course not. They lived in times when alternatives were limited, survival was tough, and modern supply chains didn’t exist. But morality evolves. For centuries, slavery, caste discrimination, and child labor were also accepted. That doesn’t make them right. Similarly, just because great people of the past ate meat doesn’t mean we should continue when better alternatives exist today.
7. Humans as Omnivores
Another point that was made that humans are omnivores by nature, and we have eaten meat for thousands of years.
My answer: That’s true but being omnivores means we can eat meat, not that we must. We are also capable of thriving on plant based diets, as science repeatedly shows. Culture and habit are powerful, but not destiny. If we can break old practices like Sati or child marriage, why not this too?
I respect the points raised, but to me, the central question still remains: If we can live healthily without killing, why not choose that path?
This is not about making everyone vegan overnight, nor about blaming the poor. It’s about starting with those of us who have choices, resources, and awareness and using them responsibly.
Debate is welcome, disagreement is natural, but silence in front of cruelty is something I personally cannot accept.
That’s my honest response. I would love to hear more thoughts whether you agree or disagree, feel free to share in the comments.
Each response you copy pasted, you should put some effort. I am not gonna evaluate you next time. ๐
ReplyDeleteHaha Mimik Das, you already know my arguments won’t change whether we discuss on WhatsApp or here ๐. But still, I appreciate you keeping the debate alive..it makes blogging more fun
DeleteHello Abhishek,
ReplyDeleteI read your blog and your reply to someone’s comment on the topic. I would like to remain anonymous to negate even an inch of unnecessary drama arising, if there is even a sliver of probability of it happening, out of this discussion.
So, I might be vegan, vegetarian, or non-vegetarian. But I would like to keep that aside and serve only my views to begin and further this discussion. I just want to know what and how you think about this. Having said that, let me begin.
1. On Conditioning
You say that we are conditioned to believe that eating meat is normal.
I certainly agree we are conditioned. And that is what being a part of a society does to you. You are conditioned by its values, norms (and all those shebang). We are conditioned to think that something done in a certain way is the correct way.
You point out that we are conditioned to think that eating meat is normal. Yet I am sure you realize that what you are doing is also an addition to that social conditioning machine. You are essentially imposing your values on a certain section of people because you think that what you think is the correct way to approach and view that said thing.
Is there anything wrong with that?
For that, I would like to avoid jumping into semantics and ruining this discussion, given another route of viewing what is wrong or right.
But yeah, there is not anything inherently wrong with that.
2. If Eating Plants Were Wrong
Continuing with the above point, say there pops up another group of people who considers even eating plants a “crime.” Then, you are going to be the “villain” in the books of those people.
Yes, it seems unrealistic to think that such a group will ever appear who walks what they talk, because if you stop eating even plants, what is left to eat? But it is not difficult to imagine a group who thinks that harming plants is bad, yet they could be realists in the sense that they cannot just die for the sake of the survival of plants.
But suppose a cult-like group emerges advocating death to prevent further harm to animals and plants. Would you sacrifice your life for their beliefs? This scenario, as you say, is a matter of choice. Would you sacrifice yourself for a principle you believe in? I think in this case, you would absolutely not, given how you cite necessity as a veiled reason and a justification to kill smaller animals.
So, because you would want to keep your life, you would avoid jumping into such a cult. Similarly, meat eaters will continue to eat meat because they want to eat meat, as shallow as the reason might be. But since we are no Socrates, we are in no position to take pride in upholding our principles.
Unpracticed principles are just opinions at best.
I say this because your arguments seemed to be highly convenient for yourself — like necessity as a reason to kill rats, insects, mosquitoes, etc. Large and sentient animals too die because of agricultural expansion, but you would dismiss it as necessity.
>>>> Continuing. Comment allows only 4096 characters in Blogger.
ReplyDelete3. On Sentience and Consciousness
Now, before anyone eagerly jumps on to the train of sentience, I would just like to divert your much-needed enthusiasm to a scenario where:
A person falls into a coma but isn’t aware of what is happening, and there is a slight chance they might revive. In that case, tell me: does the lack of consciousness, ability to feel pain, and lower probability of survival make the person less deserving to live? I hope the answer is no.
So, coming back to sentience: does this aspect alone — the ability to undergo subjective experiences, to sense, perceive, or feel states such as pleasure, pain, joy, or suffering — serve as the only criterion to decide what gets to live and who gets to die?
You might say that consciousness matters here; plants are not sentient and all, but they still react to damages done. They are born, grow, live, and die — yet you are willing to dictate and even promote their “murder.”
This might sound a bit far-fetched as an argument for some, but still, why do you get to decide who gets to live and what gets to die?
Why should we agree that humanity’s morals should be restricted only to animals?
If this argument is wrong, then what is wrong with the opinion of those who advocate the life of humans above animals? Those who eat meat yet value human life.
4. Visiting Slaughterhouses
About your point to visit a slaughterhouse:
Normally, people will be a little to very squeamish. No sane person would describe it as a pleasant sight. So, because they feel disgusted, should they leave eating meat?
There might be people who left eating meat after seeing the sight. Yet a lot of people still continue to eat despite their awareness.
You said that if people feel nothing after watching the video, they should question their humanity. Again, this is a question of boundary construction. You seem to take considerable liberty in setting criteria for many things.
People may feel disgusted, yet most will continue to eat meat despite what they saw. But does it mean they are not human enough? I think the statement is far-fetched and reflects your feelings more than logic.
If we take the argument further, it seems you are insinuating that butchers are subhuman. You need to be realistic about what is actually happening. The butchers are doing what they do — to do what? To have fun? Basically, for money.
Generally speaking, if a person had the money and an option to do something “better” than butchering, it is safe to assume (not presume) that they might do something else. But because of what they have been doing, ease of transition, and access among other reasons, they continue in their job. Whatever their reason might be, why do you get to say that they are not humane enough?
Here again, you take considerable liberty to throw out these statements.
>>>> Continuing. Comment allows only 4096 characters in Blogger.
5. The “Holier Than Thou” Perception
ReplyDeleteRegarding the “holier than thou” statement: I think it is quite valid. I am not pointing you out here, but as a general observation, vegans in particular have attracted quite some irk because of the way they have presented their views.
Because of the way vegans have sometimes tried to (or perhaps did) “cancel” people over food habits, the opposing group has often fought back — sometimes, maybe out of spite.
6. On Compassion
You have directed your argument mostly towards compassion, saying: if you have compassion, you shouldn’t be doing this. And you take it as a parameter to decide someone’s entire character and even humanity. But deriving a complete picture from only a fragment leads only to imagination.
Realistically, the butchers, when it comes to people suffering, might be as (or more) compassionate, sympathetic, empathetic, etc., than you. It is just that their work has made them insensitive to the process, and they must continue to feed their family.
This likely applies to you as well. For example, if you read newspapers or prepare for exams, you see deaths reported every day. Most of the time, they are just numbers on paper. No one can claim to cry every time. It is impossible to respond fully, and not crying does not make you less human.
This argument that you put in connection to humanity appears similar to a situation where a person says, “If you do not do this for me, you are not my friend.” More than an argument, it is akin to a tantrum.
>>>> Continuing. Comment allows only 4096 characters in Blogger.
7. Meat Production and Deforestation
ReplyDeleteYou also raise the issue of meat production and deforestation. Again, I think this argument is not very strong compared to other arguments, and not very helpful for you too.
I hope you know that what you are eating also has consequences. Some of them I have mentioned, but I will try not to indulge in it too long:
• Agriculture leads to displacement and habitat fragmentation.
• Use of chemicals kills pests and insects.
• Tilling and other practices ruin the habitat of organisms in fields.
This leads me to ask: why not care about these animals? Do these deaths remain outside your concern just because they happen beyond your sight? Or do you see them only as “collateral damage”?
8. On Necessity
We may kill mosquitoes out of necessity, but what about rodents, earthworms, microorganisms?
Why do you get to decide the arbitrary line on compassion? Compassion begins here and ends there. Where is your advocacy for sentience? Aren’t they animals?
With this argument, you are neatly hiding behind the convenience of assigning our directed compassion. You seem to have reduced the otherwise universal value of compassion to a mere tool of “necessity” and “minimization”.
9. On Choice
You say that because we have a choice not to eat meat, we should not.
Contrary to this, one can argue: since we can eat meat, why not?
Most people eat meat because they want to. Philosophy, morals, and profound questions hardly matter to them.
At the end, I would just say this: things are what they are — unless they become something else. The reality that people think they live in might appear to be the only reality, until they really look at it. People are many, and so are their realities.
• Some people might eat because they enjoy it. Is being heuristic “bad”? I don’t think so. If people are heuristic, they are just that.
• But should they be judged for their food habit? It is not a matter of should they be. They are being judged because they can be judged. And you are part of it.
• Should their humanity be questioned because of what they eat? Well, they are being questioned because they can be.
• But the question here is: who gets to decide it? The people on behalf of themselves? Or some other people on behalf of someone else? But at the end of the they, people are entitled to their own opinions. But as mentioned before, opinions shouldn’t be confused with principles. But even if what you believe you have is a principle, your actions nor your logic isn’t sound enough to convince people.
>>>> Continuing. Comment allows only 4096 characters in Blogger.
Closing Thoughts
ReplyDeleteWhat you advocate on grounds of compassion and animal cruelty is clouded by your own argument of necessity. You feel some animals should die; some get to live. You follow your own convenience, and meat eaters follow theirs. Even if someone wants to consume meat for heuristic reasons, why do you get to decide that their need or desire is beneath your standards? Why should they follow because you want to? Because if one had to go along with your principle to the end, one must die. Because the only unharmful human, is one that is 6 feet under. Dead. The meat eaters and the non-meat eaters are just groups drawing lines on a spectrum all according to their convenience.
Having said that…
This discussion, at the end of the day, is about choice, boundaries and the endeavor of persuasion. What we need at the end of the day as the fruit of this discussion, is not consensus, but acknowledgement. As simple as it might sound, the acknowledgement factor is often missing is such discussion. People need to realize that people are entitled to their choices as much as they are to opinions. If your opinion differs from someone, it does not make them more or less. It just makes them different. And acknowledgement here is necessary to make any meaningful resolution. You are in the process of persuasion of what you believe in, and people I believe are transitioning, though I am unaware of the number. This is how values and norms in society form. As it should.
------------
Now, I would like to apologize if my tone appeared harsh or so somewhere in the text. I don't have any serious opinion on the matter for or against. So, I chose a side that would allow me to further this discussion. I just wanted to have a healthy discussion. But I seriously hope that you read it and reply soon without the use of any AI, logical fallacies and diversionary tactic. I hope for proper and directed answers. Thanks for reading. Keep doing what you.
Do.
ReplyDeleteHello anonymous...thanks for taking the time to write such a thoughtful and detailed comment. You have raised some important points that deserve a proper response. I am little busy at the moment but I will get back to you as soon as I can..i appreciatee your patience ๐
ReplyDeleteThank you Abhishek. Take your time.
ReplyDeleteTry reading Stefano Mancuso's research to plants reacting to stimuli and their capacity to learn.
ReplyDeleteIf you emphasize on animals having consciousness, therefore the need to be not eaten, why stop at animals? Why not include plants? Because they have no brain? No consciousness? But how do you define consciousness and life?
But most importantly, why do you decide for others where the moral boundary lies on consumption? Plants are essentially part of biological life, why do you not fight for it? Why not stop consuming plants too? Why limit your morality to your convenience? If you do limit your morals to your convenience, why do you think you should have the moral high ground to disregard people choosing the convenience of consuming what they want instead of mixing it with some debatable views.
On the other hand, if the debate is on health and lifestyle choice and not on philosophical discussions, then this debate is hardly necessary, since people are free to choose how they want to live their lives in their personal capacities, and not be compelled for it.
Your words.
ReplyDeleteBut the question is not hygiene, the question is ethics. A cleanly polished prison is still a prison. A “hygienic” killing is still killing. The issue is whether we should take a life when we don’t need to.
The question is of morality here. If not harming life is an objective, then a truly safe person in that regard is only a dead one. Just existing as a human kills multiplicity of life.
By that argument, if you say, it is to minimize harm, that is again a lack in the conviction of the philosophy itself, but clearly understandable and logical to. You would not give up your life just to make a statement because you do not value your ideals more than your life. Not everyone can be Socrates after all.
Similarly, since you are drawing your boundaries on plants. Why can't people draw boundaries of their own on animals? Some may limit it to chicken, some culture might normalize eating even animals we keep as pets as food. Where should the boundary be drawn? Is there a need to be? If yes, why you?
You say times have changed. So, meat has alternatives. But this is what you think. And I do not have a problem with that.
But one might even say, times have changed, therefore life can be enjoyed. Say even hedonistic tendencies are on rise and people are rushing to it. Do you say it is wrong? Maybe yes, maybe not. These are subjective perspectives; people can have their own philosophies. They can be hedonistic, or believe in utilitarianism, etc. And they might view eating what they want as part of their freedom and source of enjoyment, are you still going to dictate and say it is a lesser thinking and yours is of a higher morals?