DEBUNKED: Logically consistent replies to twenty common anti-vegan arguments
When it comes to arguments surrounding the moral and legal status of nonhuman animals, what is at stake is not merely the theoretical coherence of our beliefs, but the suffering and death of the 60,000 sentient beings who were slaughtered since you began reading this entry, and those victims who follow them every minute of every day.
ROBERT C. JONES: This article from the ‘Encyclopedia of Veganism and Animal Ethics’ addresses twenty anti-vegan arguments, some quite familiar, some novel. Te arguments are divided into conceptual arguments and empirical arguments. Broadly speaking, conceptual arguments involve a philosophical analysis of ideas, concepts, or ethical principles and the logical relations between them, whereas empirical arguments rely primarily on real-world factual content.
Central to both types of arguments is the notion of logical consistency. All arguments — especially moral arguments — strive for logical consistency. Inconsistent beliefs, taken together, form a contradiction. Contradictions in our moral beliefs are bad. Further, being consistent in the way we treat others is at the heart of impartiality and fairness, concepts central to ethical deliberation and practice.
When it comes to arguments surrounding the moral and legal status of nonhuman animals, what is at stake is not merely the theoretical coherence of our beliefs, but the suffering and death of the 60,000 sentient beings who were slaughtered since you began reading this entry, and those victims who follow them every minute of every day. For these reasons, formulating adequate rejoinders to anti-vegan arguments is more than an academic exercise, it is indispensable to a sound theoretical foundation for animal liberation. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEO: