My thoughts on veganism
I really don't have anywhere else to post this, as the vegan and vegan debate subs either rejected it, banned me or both. I'm interested in your thoughts and feedback.
Emotional Rhetoric vs. Reality
A major issue with standard vegan arguments is the heavy reliance on hyper-emotional language, specifically words like "rape" and "murder." From both a legal and linguistic standpoint, this is a category error. Murder specifically denotes the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being.
Society classifies different types of killing under distinct moral and legal categories based on context, such as self-defense, manslaughter, euthanasia, and slaughter. Collapsing all forms of killing into a single, emotionally charged word completely ignores how human ethical and legal systems actually operate. It is a rhetorical tactic designed to shut down nuance rather than invite an honest debate.
The Slavery Analogy is a Non-Starter
Vegans frequently attempt to draw a parallel to human atrocities by arguing that "slavery was normalized too." This is a massive false equivalence. Chattel slavery was an artificial economic and social system enforced by a small minority of human elites to exploit other humans.
Eating meat, by contrast, is a cross-cultural, baseline biological behavior that has spanned virtually the entire existence of our species. For over 99 percent of human history, veganism was functionally non-existent. You cannot logically compare a specific, localized historical crime against humanity to an evolutionary dietary norm that defines human development.
The Inescapable Reality of Harm
The philosophical foundation of absolute veganism falls apart when confronted with the reality of resource competition. Simply by existing in a modern society, every single human causes harm to the natural world.
"Necessity"
When confronted with the environmental and animal toll of plant agriculture, the argument usually shifts to: "Well, you don't need to eat animals to survive."
But human life is not based on mere survival alone. If our moral baseline dictated that we must only consume what is strictly necessary to keep our hearts beating, human life would be utterly bleak. We would eat nothing but basic plant mash and drink only water.
By this logic, no one needs coffee, tea, chocolate, alcohol, or smartphones. The production and shipping of these non-essential luxuries cause documented environmental destruction, habitat loss, and human labor exploitation. If a vegan justifies consuming these items for their own pleasure and convenience despite the collateral damage, they have already admitted that human enjoyment justifies causing harm to the planet and its inhabitants.
The Procreation Paradox
If the ultimate moral goal of life is to minimize your footprint and reduce negative impact on animals, then bringing a new human into the world is the most unethical thing a person can do. A single child (even one raised vegan) will consume vast amounts of water, electricity, plastics, and land over the course of their lifetime, directly competing with wildlife for resources.
Strictly looking at the numbers, an omnivore who chooses not to have children has a vastly smaller lifetime ecological and animal-impact footprint than a vegan couple who decides to have two or three children. Vegans tend to optimize for one specific variable (diet) while ignoring a much larger variable (reproduction) simply because the latter is a human drive they do not want to sacrifice.
The Subjectivity of "Practicable"
The official definition of veganism includes the clause: "as far as is possible and practicable." This is the escape hatch vegans use to justify using modern medicines, vaccines, and everyday items that rely on animal testing or animal-derived stabilizers.
However, "practicable" is entirely subjective. If a vegan is allowed to draw their moral line based on their physical health and medical comfort, then anyone else is allowed to draw that line based on their social, cultural, and mental well-being.
Humans are tribal, social animals. Forcing oneself into a strict ideological box can lead to severe social isolation, anxiety, and friction with family or culture. If maintaining your mental health and social integration requires participating in the baseline dietary culture of your community, that is a legitimate psychological need.
The Social Cost of Absolutism
We live in a morally relativistic world, and the existence of any legal system proves this. What is a reasonable moral trade-off for one person or culture is different for another. It is not the black-and-white calculation that absolutists make it out to be.
Morality cannot be calculated in a vacuum; it must include how we interact with our own species. If adopting a strict, uncompromising ideology makes a person socially disruptive, self-righteous, and isolated, that is a real, measurable net negative to their life and the lives of those around them. Human social cohesion is a legitimate factor in overall utility, and sacrificing it for the illusion of a zero-harm lifestyle is a losing equation.