Veganism: Justice Movement or Campaign?

In the animal welfare vs. abolition debate playing out today, welfarists call abolitionists rigid and unrealistic, while abolitionists accuse welfarists of legitimizing exploitation by making it easier to accept. History, and the lived experiences of the oppressed, settles this: abolitionism is more aligned with justice. But just because abolitionism is less harmful than welfarism doesn’t make it a justice movement by today’s standards. Abolition and welfarism both 'campaign' against specific 'expressions' of bias. A 'justice movement confronts the bias' itself, the belief system that fuels all injustice. Both abolitionism and welfarism fail to meet the standards of modern justice, one just causes less damage while still missing the point.

PSYCHOLOJUST: The definition of veganism remains one of the most contentious issues in the animal justice space. Beyond the usual distortions (e.g., diet, lifestyle, trend, environmentalism), the deeper divide is between those who frame veganism as welfarism and those who frame it as abolitionism.

Welfarism Vs. Abolitionism: Who Wins? Both focus on animal exploitation, but move in opposite directions:Welfarism tries to improve the conditions of exploitation. Abolitionism seeks to end exploitation entirely.

During human slavery, welfare reforms aimed at reducing cruelty and making slavery more “humane” only prolonged its existence. Abolitionists rejected those reforms, insisting slavery had to end — and history proved them right.

That same reform-versus-eradication debate plays out today: welfarists call abolitionists rigid and unrealistic, while abolitionists accuse welfarists of legitimizing exploitation by making it easier to accept.

History — and the lived experiences of the oppressed — settles this: abolitionism is more aligned with justice. Pretending that incremental reforms will end exploitation contradicts history and how bias and injustice function. Debate over.

But just because abolitionism is less harmful than welfarism doesn’t make it a justice movement by today’s standards. Abolition targets a single system — one expression of bias — without confronting the bias itself and the countless other injustices that bias produces.

Both abolitionism and welfarism fail to meet the standards of modern justice — one just causes less damage while still missing the point. Defining veganism through either lens shows a failure to grasp the most basic lessons history has made undeniable: when bias goes unchallenged, injustice doesn’t end — it adapts. That’s why civil rights and anti-racism movements had to follow the abolition of slavery.

Animals deserve the same standard. They deserve advocates who understand the limitations of the very approaches they argue over, and how both left injustice intact. They deserve advocates who understand and confront the root cause of injustice — and treat every expression of that bias as equally unacceptable. Not just the one symptom they choose to campaign against…

Campaign vs. Justice Movement. A campaign targets symptoms. A justice movement targets the cause. Abolition and welfarism both campaign against specific expressions of bias. A justice movement confronts the bias itself — the belief system that fuels all injustice …

Justice or Just Anti-[Use/Abuse]? Animal welfarist campaigns aim to reduce suffering within systems of exploitation by pushing for larger cages, cleaner slaughterhouses, quicker kills, or less painful procedures. But as history shows, making exploitation more palatable doesn’t end it — it extends it, by easing public discomfort…

But what many miss is that most welfarists act out of empathy. They see the violence and want to do something — anything. Like those who once tried to “improve” slavery because they felt powerless to end it, many turn to welfarism when justice feels out of reach.

That impulse comes from care — something many abolitionist-aligned advocates seem to suppress. Not because they reject welfarism, but because they show little emotional response to the scale of violence animals endure. Instead of confronting the reality that animals are targeted in more than one way, they lash out at those who center abuse — demanding allegiance to outdated definitions that do nothing to address the bias driving both exploitation and abuse…

Further, many who promote animal welfare don’t even realize their approach is ineffective. But instead of supporting and expanding their concern for animals, abolitionist-aligned advocates attack it. Targeting people who already care, simply because they haven’t yet grasped the limits of welfarism, which only reinforces the perception that veganism is extreme, inaccessible, and hostile. A club for the self-righteous, and not a cause for justice…

Reducing veganism to opposition to either animal use or abuse misses the point of justice entirely. That’s the uncomfortable truth many “vegans” built their reputations on denying — which is why many resort to distortion, deflection, or outright harassment when it’s exposed.

Both camps devalue animals by treating them as worthy of only partial protection — spared from use or abuse, but rarely both. Animals become props in a human power struggle: one camp dilutes “exploitation” into vague terms like “misuse,” clinging to 1950s definitions from a time when justice was barely understood. The other fixates on cruelty for shock value, fueling resistance instead of change. And anyone who demands advocacy that reflects today’s standards gets dismissed — accused of “denigrating veganism” simply for not fitting into one of these narrow, selective camps.

Taking accountability for selective or outdated advocacy — without twisting definitions to avoid it — means ending the fight against each other and actually fighting for animals. Even if it doesn’t come with the thrill of “dominating a debate” or the in-group praise and social clout that so many seem to crave…

This debate has no winner. There’s no “better” camp — just flawed humans reacting to a biased world where injustice is normalized, and everyone’s too busy defending their own beliefs to recognize it, let alone address it.

What if veganism actually meant freeing animals from every injustice driven by bias — not just opposing exploitation, or making it less cruel?

What if advocates stopped circling symptoms and started naming the bias behind both use and abuse — treating every expression of that bias as equally unacceptable?

What if they dropped the outdated definitions, stopped obsessing over who’s “right,” and chose to learn instead of reciting dogma? What if they stopped reducing animals into slogans, content, or props — and saw them as individuals with lives worth defending, fully and without exception?

What if they fought socialized bias together — instead of attacking each other, or those still in the process of unlearning it?

What if veganism became a real justice movement — not just in name, but in practice?

Because justice today means addressing the root of the bias behind all the injustice animals endure. No exceptions. No qualifiers. No debate over which symptom “matters more.” Maybe then, animals wouldn’t be left fighting alone — or with advocates who only show up for the ones that fit their narrow definition of veganism. SOURCE…

RELATED VIDEO: