opinion essay veganism

Essays About Veganism: Top 5 Examples and 10 Prompts

Veganism is on the rise. See below for our great examples of essays about veganism and helpful writing prompts to get started. 

Veganism is the practice of abstaining from animal-based foods and products. The movement originated from the philosophies against using animals as commodities and for capitalist gains. Now a booming industry, veganism promises better health benefits, a more humane world for animals, and an effective solution to global warming. 

Here is our round-up of essays examples about veganism:

1. A Brief History of Veganism by Claire Suddath

2. animal testing on plant-based ingredients divides vegan community by jill ettinger, 3. as vegan activism grows, politicians aim to protect agri-business, restaurateurs by alexia renard, 4. bezos, gates back fake meat and dairy made from fungus as next big alt-protein by bob woods, 5. going vegan: can switching to a plant-based diet really save the planet by sarah marsh, 1. health pros and cons of veganism, 2. veganism vs. vegetarianism, 3. the vegan society, 4. making a vegan diet plan, 5. profitability of vegan restaurants, 6. public personalities who are vegan, 7. the rise of different vegan products, 8. is vegan better for athletes, 9. vegans in your community, 10. most popular vegan activists.

“Veganism is an extreme form of vegetarianism, and though the term was coined in 1944, the concept of flesh-avoidance can be traced back to ancient Indian and eastern Mediterranean societies.”

Suddath maps out the historical roots of veganism and the global routes of its influences. She also laid down its evolution in various countries where vegan food choices became more flexible in considering animal-derived products critical to health. 

“Along with eschewing animal products at mealtime, vegans don’t support other practices that harm animals, including animal testing. But it’s a process rampant in both the food and drug industries.”

Ettinger follows the case of two vegan-founded startups that ironically conducts animal testing to evaluate the safety of their vegan ingredients for human consumption. The essay brings to light the conflicts between the need to launch more vegan products and ensuring the safety of consumers through FDA-required animal tests. 

“Indeed, at a time when the supply of vegan products is increasing, activists sometimes fear the reduction of veganism to a depoliticized way of life that has been taken over by the food industry.”

The author reflects on a series of recent vegan and animal rights activist movements and implies disappointment over the government’s response to protect public safety rather than support the protests’ cause. The essay differentiates the many ways one promotes and fights for veganism and animal rights but emphasizes the effectiveness of collective action in shaping better societies. 

“Beyond fungus, Nature’s Fynd also is representative of the food sustainability movement, whose mission is to reduce the carbon footprint of global food systems, which generate 34% of greenhouse emissions linked to climate change.”

The essay features a company that produces alternative meat products and has the backing of Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Al Gore. The essay divulges the company’s investments and plans to expand in the vegan market while providing a picture of the burgeoning alternative foods sector. 

“Experts say changing the way we eat is necessary for the future of the planet but that government policy is needed alongside this. If politicians are serious about wanting dietary changes, they also need to incentivise it, scientists and writers add.”

The article conveys the insights and recommendations of environmental and agriculture experts on how to turn more individuals into vegans. The experts emphasize the need for a whole-of-society approach in shifting more diets to vegan instead of putting the onus for change on an individual. 

10 Writing Prompts on Essays About Veganism

Here is our round-up of the best prompts to create interesting essays about veganism: 

While veganism has been a top choice for those desiring to lose weight and have a healthier lifestyle, some studies have also shown its detrimental effects on health due to deficiencies in specific vitamins. First, find out what existing research and experts say about this. Then, lay down the advantages and disadvantages of going vegan, explain each, and wrap up your essay with your insights.

Differentiate veganism from vegetarianism. Tackle the foods vegans and vegetarians consume and do not consume and cite the different effects they have on your health and the environment. You may also expand this prompt to discuss the other dietary choices that spawned from veganism. 

The Vegan Society is a UK-based non-profit organization aimed at educating the public on the ways of veganism and promoting this as a way of life to as many people. Expound on its history, key organizational pillars, and recent and future campaigns. You may also broaden this prompt by listing down vegan organizations around the world. Then discuss each one’s objectives and campaigns. 

Write down the healthiest foods you recommend your readers to include in a vegan diet plan. Contrary to myths, vegan foods can be very flavorful depending on how they are cooked and prepared. You may expand this prompt to add recommendations for the most flavorful spices and sauces to take any vegan recipe a notch higher. 

Vegan restaurants were originally a niche market. But with the rise of vegan food products and several multinational firms’ foray into the market, the momentum for vegan restaurants was launched into an upward trajectory—research on how profitable vegan restaurants are against restos offering meat on the menu. You may also recommend innovative business strategies for a starting vegan restaurant to thrive and stay competitive in the market. 

From J.Lo to Bill Gates, there is an increasing number of famous personalities who are riding the vegan trend with good reason. So first, list a few celebrities, influencers, and public figures who are known advocates of veganism. Then, research and write about stories that compelled them to change their dietary preference.

The market for vegan-based non-food products is rising, from makeup to leather bags and clothes. First, create a list of vegan brands that are growing in popularity. Then, research the materials they use and the processes they employ to preserve the vegan principles. This may prompt may also turn into a list of the best gift ideas for vegans.

Many believe that a high-protein diet is a must for athletes. However, several athletes have dispelled the myth that vegan diets lack the protein levels for rigorous training and demanding competition. First, delve deeper into the vegan foods that serve as meat alternatives regarding protein intake. Then, cite other health benefits a vegan diet can offer to athletes. You may also add research on what vegan athletes say about how a vegan diet gives them energy. 

Interview people in your community who are vegan. Write about how they made the decision and how they transitioned to this lifestyle. What were the initial challenges in their journey, and how did they overcome these? Also, ask them for tips they would recommend to those who are struggling to uphold their veganism.

Make a list of the most popular vegan activists. You may narrow your list to personalities in digital media who are speaking loud and proud about their lifestyle choice and trying to inspire others to convert. Narrate the ways they have made and are making an impact in their communities. 

To enhance your essay, read our guide explaining what is persuasive writing . 

If you’d like to learn more, check out our guide on how to write an argumentative essay .

Opinion: Why going vegan is a ‘manly’ thing to do

• Copy Link URL Copied!

Twenty-three years ago, I did what seemed unthinkable: I went vegan. I had been vegetarian for 10 years, and throughout that decade I viewed veganism — eschewing not only animal flesh but also eggs, dairy-based foods and honey — as extreme. Surely consuming eggs and cheese isn’t hurting anyone, I told myself.

Visiting a sanctuary for farmed animals changed my opinion. I met cows rescued from dairy farms whose bodies had been so exploited that they had trouble walking. And there were hens saved from the egg industry who had spent most of their lives packed with four other birds into a barren cage the size of a filing cabinet drawer.

Opinion: One way to save the Colorado River? Give up one hamburger a week

I work on water sustainability and learned about how much water cattle ranches consume. Was I ready to go without meat?

April 5, 2024

I went vegan that day and soon learned I was in a minority. Just how much of the U.S. population is vegan is hard to say, with estimates ranging from 1% to 5% . But on average, just one-quarter of us identify as male. And among global vegans , the number of men also remains small.

It appears that many men have not embraced a vegan lifestyle partly because they find it “ unmanly .” Meat has been inexorably linked to protein, and men have been taught that animal protein will make them strong. Likewise, the notion that plant foods are delicate and feminine is entrenched in many Western cultures, where too often men believe only meat will keep them healthy.

Op-Ed: As a vegan, there’s a lot of soul food I can’t eat. What kind of Black person does that make me?

There have been moments when my evolving diet has compromised my ability to feel like part of the Black community.

Jan. 30, 2022

Yet study after study shows that vegan diets are not only healthy for humans but may be healthiest for the planet too. Eating meat and dairy has been linked to a variety of health issues, including heart disease and certain cancers . Animal agriculture also produces a significant amount of greenhouse gasses, making it one of the leading contributors to the climate crisis.

So is it possible to overcome the narrative that veganism is not manly? I believe it is. The solution lies in reframing the idea of masculinity itself, which — let’s be honest — is just a social construct.

Op-Ed: The trouble with being ‘beefatarians’

Rising beef consumption around the world increases greenhouse gas emissions and affects the entire planet.

July 9, 2021

We can decouple masculinity from food or, better yet, show that veganism satisfies all the requirements of anyone who identifies as a man. Free from the burden of what society expects of men in general and masculinity in particular, we can gain a broader and more authentic understanding of ourselves.

Stereotypical expectations of men, such as being strong, courageous and protective, can be viewed through a vegan lens.

Do vegetarians smell different than meat-eaters? A strange encounter led me to find out

Running along the trails that whipsaw through the oak forests of the Palo Alto hills, I was hit with a musky, skunky smell that made the hair on my neck stand up.

March 1, 2024

Male attitudes about eating tend to focus on consuming meat to gain strength, to reinforce their gender identity and even to dominate other species. But the most powerful land animals — think elephants, oxen, buffaloes and rhinos — build muscle by eating plants. Ancient Romans may have observed this as well, since gladiators, considered to be among the toughest athletes, adhered to gladiatoriam saginam , a diet that was based on plant foods, including legumes, pulses and grains.

As another virtue men take to heart, courage fits neatly into a rethinking of masculinity and diet. It takes courage to stand up to not only the slaughtering of animals but also the peer pressure to eat meat. One young man told researchers studying men’s perceptions of meat alternatives that he was worried about photos on social media of him eating at a vegan restaurant. “I don’t want to end up with my friends laughing at me over a plant-based burger.”

Many men also pride themselves on being protectors — especially protectors of their family and home. Since veganism means abstaining from the exploitation and consumption of animals, vegans participate in the protection of countless vulnerable species and the environment, particularly if they extend the ethic beyond what they eat.

I suspect that men who mock veganism, such as those who deride the leaflets about being vegan I’ve handed out on college campuses, feel threatened and maybe even a little ashamed. What else could explain ridiculing a delicious and nutritious way of eating that is so much better for everyone? The benefits of a vegan diet are only becoming clearer, and so are the harms of consuming animals.

Yet some men still feel the need for posturing, as if their masculinity would be compromised were they to even express an interest in veganism. I found this at my old gym, a place where stereotypes of masculine strength are often on display. I’d wear a T-shirt with “VEGAN” across the front in bold letters. Other men would often acknowledge the message with some combination of curiosity and disdain.

“Where do you get your protein?” one asked me.

“From plants,” I said, to which he scoffed, “Man, you need meat to build muscle and be strong.”

“Tell that to a gorilla,” I said.

Mark Hawthorne serves on the board of the rabbit rescue nonprofit Save the Buns Inc., and is the author of “ A Vegan Ethic: Embracing a Life of Compassion Toward All .”

More to Read

Opinion: How farming can turn carbon from a climate threat into an asset

Sept. 14, 2024

JD Vance and the politics of vegetarianism in a red-meat Republican Party

Aug. 13, 2024

Q&A: Noma chef René Redzepi wants to make insects delicious. In ‘Omnivore,’ he explains why

July 18, 2024

A cure for the common opinion

Get thought-provoking perspectives with our weekly newsletter.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Opinion: Child care is now a central issue in the presidential race. That didn’t happen overnight

Sept. 29, 2024

Abcarian: What kind of country would kill Marcellus Williams despite questions about his conviction?

Calmes: Sometimes real life has to intrude on the news. In this election year, what’s crucial will catch up to you

Column: Too corrupt for reality TV? There’s always Congress as a Plan B

Sept. 27, 2024

Most Read in Opinion

Letters to the Editor

Letters to the Editor: Your ‘protest vote’ for Jill Stein is really a vote for Donald Trump

Endorsement: Rep. Michelle Steel needs to go. Derek Tran for the 45th Congressional District

Sept. 9, 2024

I watched old Tim Walz and JD Vance debates. Here’s what to expect

Sept. 28, 2024

Opinion: How can Usha Vance stand by her husband as he fans bigotry?

Sept. 23, 2024

• Our Activities
• Get Involved

Reports, videos and workshops

Arguments For and Against Veganism

For veganism.

• ANIMAL WELFARE: Eating meat requires the death of a living being. Eating dairy usually involves animals being separated from their children, causing distress to both mother and calf. Dairy cattle frequently develop bovine mastitis (a painful infection and inflammation of the udders), and factory farmed animals are kept in cramped conditions and pumped full of antibiotics and growth hormones in order to maximise profit. Unlike wild animals, humans do not require meat to survive (and definitely not dairy products from other animals). Eating meat is a choice and, as moral actors, the correct choice is surely to give up meat and dairy.
• ENVIRONMENT: When cows eat grass, microbes in their gut break down their meal and produce methane. This methane (a greenhouse gas) is released into the atmosphere via the magic of cow burps and farts, making livestock farming one of the biggest contributors to global warming. Factor in deforestation from land clearance, biodiversity loss, and air and water pollution, and animal agriculture is terrible for the environment.
• HEALTH: Vegan diets tend to be rich in foods that have proven health benefits: fresh fruit, vegetables, seeds, nuts, beans and pulses. A vegan diet is typically higher in fibre, and  lower  in cholesterol, protein, calcium and salt compared to a non-vegan diet. Research suggests that vegans may have a lower risk of heart disease than non-vegans. It is true that vegans need to supplement their diets with B12, but this is easy to do (e.g. via yeast extracts such as Marmite).

AGAINST Veganism

• NATURE: Humans (and our ancestors) have eaten meat for an estimated  2.6 million years . In fact, scientists argue that animal protein was vital for helping early hominids develop larger brains, meaning that humans likely wouldn’t even exist if it weren’t for eating meat. We evolved to have meat as part of our diets. Animals eat meat and it would be cruel to prevent them from doing so. Well, guess what? Humans are animals too, and meat is a natural part of our diets.
• CULTURE: Food is a central part of all human cultures. And, around the world, people celebrate their cultures by cooking meat dishes. If the world went vegan, we would lose iconic cultural traditions such as bolognese sauce, tandoori chicken, sashimi, currywurst, and Peking duck.
• HEALTH: A balanced diet is a healthy diet. Eating moderate amounts of fish, meat, and dairy alongside fruit, vegetables and pulses gives us all the vitamins, minerals, fatty acids, and other things we need to stay healthy. Research does suggest that vegans have a lower risk of heart disease, but that same research also indicates they have a higher risk of strokes (possibly due to B12 deficiency), and it’s unclear whether the supposed health benefits of veganism are anyway less about diet and more about broader lifestyle (e.g. vegans tend to exercise more, be non-smokers, not drink to excess, be more moderate in what they consume, etc.).

Image Credits : Image by Freepik

Enter your email address and password to log in to Debating Europe.

Not a supporter yet?

Registration

Are you registering as an individual citizen or a Debating Europe community partner?

Individual Citizen Registration Form Community Partner Registration Form

Why we shouldn’t all be vegan

Visiting Research Fellow in Philosophy, University of Hertfordshire

Professor of Food Science and Biotechnology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Disclosure statement

Martin Cohen has no formal conflicts of interests although in a wider sense he is a long-time campaigner on ecological issues and the author of a recent book advancing philosophical and sociological arguments for a more ethical and holistic approach to food.

Frédéric Leroy receives research funding from various foundations and councils, incuding the Research Foundation Flanders and his University's Research Council. He is affiliated pro-bono with both the Belgian Association of Meat Science and Technology, a non-funded academic organisation grouping various Belgian scientists, and the scientific committee of the Institute Danone Belgium.

View all partners

After decades in which the number of people choosing to cut out meat from their diet has steadily increased, 2019 is set to be the year the world changes the way that it eats. Or at least, that’s the ambitious aim of a major campaign under the umbrella of an organisation simply called EAT . The core message is to discourage meat and dairy, seen as part of an “over-consumption of protein” – and specifically to target consumption of beef.

The push comes at a time when consumer behaviour already seems to be shifting. In the three years following 2014, according to research firm GlobalData, there was a six-fold increase in people identifying as vegans in the US, a huge rise – albeit from a very low base. It’s a similar story in the UK, where the number of vegans has increased by 350%, compared to a decade ago, at least according to research commissioned by the Vegan Society.

And across Asia, many governments are promoting plant-based diets. New government dietary guidelines in China, for example, call on the nation’s 1.3 billion people to reduce their meat consumption by 50% . Flexitarianism, a mostly plant-based diet with the occasional inclusion of meat, is also on the rise .

‘Conquering the world’

Big food companies have noticed the shift and have jumped onto the vegan wagon, the most prominent ones tightly associated with EAT through its FReSH program . Unilever, for instance, is a very vocal partner. Recently, the multinational announced it was acquiring a meat-substitute company called “The Vegetarian Butcher”. It described the acquisition as part of a strategy to expand “into plant-based foods that are healthier and have a lower environmental impact”. Currently, Unilever sells just under 700 products under the “V-label” in Europe.

“The Vegetarian Butcher” was conceived in 2007 by farmer Jaap Kortweg, chef Paul Brom and marketer Niko Koffeman, a Dutch Seventh-Day Adventist who is vegetarian for religious and ideological reasons. Koffeman is also at the origin of the Partij voor de Dieren , a political party advocating for animal rights in The Netherlands. Like EAT, the Vegetarian Butcher seeks to “ conquer the world ”. Its mission is “to make plant-based ‘meat’ the standard” – and the alliance with Unilever paves the way.

The dietary shift would require a remarkable turn around in consumer habits. Of course, there is much that both can and should be done to improve the way that we eat, both in terms of consumer health and environmental impact. And yes, a key plank of the strategy will be shifting consumers away from beef. But the extreme vision of some of the campaign’s backers is somewhat startling. Former UN official Christiana Figueres, for example, thinks that anyone who wants a steak should be banished. “How about restaurants in ten to 15 years start treating carnivores the same way that smokers are treated?”, Figueres suggested during a recent conference. “If they want to eat meat, they can do it outside the restaurant.”

This statement is typical of what social scientists call “ bootlegger and Baptist ” coalitions, in which groups with very different ideas – and values – seek to rally under a common banner. And this is what worries us. The campaign to “conquer the world” can be rather simplistic and one-sided, and we think this has some dangerous implications.

A skewed view?

EAT, for example, describes itself as a science-based global platform for food system transformation . It has partnered with Oxford and Harvard universities, as well as with the medical journal The Lancet. But we have concerns that some of the science behind the campaign and the policy is partial and misleading.

It is long on things that we all know are bad, such as some excesses of factory farming and rainforest clearing to raise beef cattle. But it is mostly silent on such things as the nutritional assets of animal products, especially for children in rural African settings, and the sustainability benefits of livestock in areas as diverse as sub-Saharan Africa to traditional European upland valleys. And, if vegetarian diets show that traditional markers for heart disease, such as “total cholesterol”, are usually improved, this is not the case for the more predictive (and thus valuable) markers such as the triglyceride/HDL (or “good” cholesterol) ratio, which even tend to deteriorate .

More importantly, most nutritional “evidence” originates from epidemiology, which is not able to show causation but only statistical correlations. Not only are the associations weak , the research is generally confounded by lifestyle and other dietary factors . Not to mention that part of the epidemiological data, such as the PURE study , show that the consumption of meat and dairy can be associated with less – rather than more – chronic disease.

Not so simple

In any case, even if plant-based diets can in theory provide the nutrients people need, as long as they are supplemented with critical micronutrients (such as vitamin B12 and certain long-chain fatty acids), that is not to say that in practice shifting people towards them will not result in a great many people following poorly balanced diets and suffering ill health in consequence. And when a vegan diet fails, for instance due to poor supplementation, it may result in serious physical and cognitive impairment and failure to thrive .

The approach seems particularly risky during pregnancy and for the very young , as also documented by a long list of clinical case reports in medical literature. Animal products are exceptionally nutrient-dense dietary sources – removing them from the diet compromises metabolic robustness. Without sufficient insight in the complexities of nutrition and human metabolism, it is easy to overlook important issues as the proportion of nutrients that can be absorbed from the diet, nutrient interactions and protein quality.

The same debate needs to be had when it comes to consideration of the environmental question. Too fast or radical a shift towards “plant-based” diets risks losing realistic and achievable goals, such as increasing the benefits of natural grazing and embracing farming techniques that reduce the wasteful feeding of crops to animals, lower climate impact and enhance biodoversity.

A shift towards a radically plant-based planetary diet loses the many benefits of livestock – including its deployment on land that is not suitable for crop production, its contribution to livelihoods, and the many other benefits that animals provide. It mistakenly assumes that land use can be swiftly altered and ignores the potential of farming techniques that may even have mitigating effects .

Sustainable, ecological and harmonious animal production really should be part of the solution of the “world food problem”, considered from both the nutritional and environmental scenarios. The Earth is an extraordinarily complex ecosystem – any one-size-fits-all solution risks wreaking havoc with it.

More articles about vegetarianism and veganism , written by academic experts:

Vegan diet: how your body changes from day one

Why aren’t more people vegetarian?

Vegans: why they inspire fear and loathing among meat eaters

For more evidence-based articles by academics, subscribe to our newsletter .

• Cholesterol
• Well-balanced diet
• Interdisciplinarity
• Meat substitutes

Administrator - Research Support

Economics Editor

Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Indigenous Strategy and Services)

Chief People & Culture Officer

Lecturer / senior lecturer in construction and project management.

Introduction: Thinking Through Veganism

• First Online: 25 May 2018

Cite this chapter

• Emelia Quinn 6 &
• Benjamin Westwood 7  

Part of the book series: Palgrave Studies in Animals and Literature ((PSAAL))

1532 Accesses

2 Citations

This introduction outlines the social, environmental, and intellectual contexts shaping the emergence of vegan theory. It establishes an understanding of veganism’s messy, contradictory aspects, which runs counter to contemporary conceptualizations of it as a faddish diet or punitive set of proscriptions. Quinn and Westwood argue that veganism is situated between two opposing, but necessary poles: utopianism and insufficiency, aligned respectively with the work of Carol J. Adams and Jacques Derrida. The importance of these coordinates derives from their opposition: veganism as a confluence of utopian impulses, and the acknowledgement of their inevitable insufficiency. This introduction shows how thinking through veganism—as a heuristic lens and topic in its own right—opens out onto a wide variety of issues and questions explored in the following essays.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

The Ism in Veganism: The Case for a Minimal Practice-based Definition

The Unknown Herbert Marcuse

Introduction. Heirs: Bourdieu, Marx and Ourselves

Oxford English Dictionary , 3rd ed., s.v. “vegan, n.2 and adj.2. ”

See Robert McKay’s essay in this collection.

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, “Around the Performative: Periperformative Vicinities in Nineteenth-Century Narrative,” Touching Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity (Durham, 2003), pp. 71–72.

See Richard Twine’s essay on the “intersectional disgust ” that he suggests has divorced the question of the animal from mainstream feminism (“Intersectional disgust ? Animals and (eco)feminism ,” Feminism & Psychology 20, no.3 (2010): 397–406). While we are reluctant to conflate homosexual oppression with the oppression of animals, we do not shy away from the recognition of important analogies that allow us to theorize human social and political structures in relation to the nonhuman. As Twine concludes “It would be a shame if disgust were to get in the way of conversation” (p. 402).

As made clear by Carol J. Adams in Sexual Politics of Meat  (London, 2015) and Annie Potts, “Exploring Vegansexuality: An Embodied Ethics of Intimacy” William Lynn: Ethics and Politics of Sustainability. 9 March 2008. http://www.williamlynn.net/exploring-vegansexuality-an-embodied-ethics-of-intimacy/

See, for example, José Esteban Muñoz , Cruising Utopia: The Then and There of Queer Futurity (New York, 2009) and Judith Halberstam , The Queer Art of Failure (Durham, 2011).

See Sara Salih’s essay in this collection.

J. M. Coetzee, The Lives of Animals (Princeton, 2001), p. 67.

See, for example, Martha Nussbaum, Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law (Princeton, 2004). Nussbaum condemns disgust as reliant on fears that are “typically unreasonable, embodying magical ideas of contamination, and impossible aspirations to purity, immortality, and nonanimality, that are just not in line with human life as we know it” (p. 23).

Matthew Calarco, “Deconstruction is not vegetarianism: Humanism, subjectivity, and animal ethics,” Continental Philosophy Review 37, no. 2 (2004): 194.

Ibid., pp. 195, emphasis added.

United Nations, “World population projected to reach 9.7 billion by 2050” UN.org , 29 July 2015. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html

United Nations Environmental Programme, “Assessing the Environ-mental Impacts of Consumption and Production” UNEP.org , 2010. http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx1262xPA-PriorityProductsAndMaterials_Report.pdf ; London Economic, “Vegan Food Sales up by 1500% in Past Year” The London Economic, November 2016. https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/food-drink/vegan-food-sales-up-by-1500-in-past-year/01/11/ ; Vegan Life, “Veganism Booms By 350%” VeganLife Magazine, 18 May 2016. http://www.veganlifemag.com/veganism-booms/

The UK National Health Service supports this, stating on its website that a well-planned vegan diet will provide all the nutrients the body needs. NHS, “The vegan diet,” nhs.uk. http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Vegetarianhealth/Pages/Vegandiets.aspx

Michael P. Branch and Scott Slovic, The ISLE Reader (Athens, 2003), p. xvi.

See, for example, Graham Huggan and Helen Tiffin , Postcolonial Ecocriticism (Abingdon, 2010), Carol J. Adams and Josephine Donovan, Animals and Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations (Durham, 1995), and Val Plumwood , Feminism and the Mastery of Nature (London, 1993).

For more on Deep Ecology, see George Session, Deep Ecology for the Twenty-First Century (Boston, 1995).

Robert C. Jones, “Veganisms,” in Critical Perspectives on Veganism, eds. Jodey Castricano and Rasmus R. Simsonsen (London, 2016), pp. 15–39.

Kara Jesella, “Vegans exhibiting an ever wilder side for their cause,” nytimes.com , The New York Times, 27 March 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/arts/27iht-vegan.1.11463224.html

Best et al., “Introducing Critical Animal Studies,” Journal for Critical Animal Studies 5, no.1 (2007).

Taylor and Twine, “Introduction. Locating the ‘Critical’ in Critical Animal Studies,” in The Rise of Critical Animal Studies, eds. Nik Taylor and Richard Twine (Abingdon, 2014), p. 2.

Ibid., p. 6.

Ibid., p. 12.

Pederson and Stanescu, “Future Directions for Critical Animal Studies,” in Critical Animal Studies, p. 262.

Wright, The Vegan Studies Project: Food, Animals, and Gender in the Age of Terror (Athens and London, 2015), p. 7.

Joshua Schuster, “The Vegan and the Sovereign,” in Critical Perspectives, pp. 216, 210.

Anat Pick, “Turning to Animals Between Love and Law,” New Formations: A Journal of Culture/Theory/Politics 76 (2012): 65–85.

For more comprehensive surveys of the development of animal studies, see Linda Kalof (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies (Oxford, 2017); Garry Marvin and Susan McHugh (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Human-Animal Studies (Abingdon, 2014); Derek Ryan, Animal Theory: A Critical Introduction (Edinburgh, 2015); and Kari Weil , Thinking Animals: Why Animal Studies Now? (New York, 2012).

The French edition was published in 1999, with an extended version released in 2006. The work itself is based largely on the text of a series of lectures given by Derrida at the 1997 Cerisy-la-Salle conference on “The Autobiographical Animal.”

Derrida, “‘Eating well’, or the Calculation of the Subject,” in Points… : Interviews, 1974–1994 , ed. Elisabeth Weber, trans. Peggy Kamuf (Stanford, 1995), p. 280.

Derrida, The Animal That Therefore I Am , ed. Marie-Louise Mallet, trans. David Wills (New York, 2008), p. 111.

Ibid., p. 28.

Adams, Sexual Politics of Meat , pp. xix; emphasis original.

Ibid., p. 63.

Ibid., p. 21.

Erica Fudge, Animal (London, 2002), p. 45.

Derrida, “Eating Well, ” p. 282.

Calarco, “Deconstruction is not vegetarianism,” p. 198.

Ibid., p. 194.

Gary Steiner, Animals and the Limits of Postmodernism (New York, 2013), p. 63.

Works Cited

Adams, Carol J. 2015—1990. The Sexual Politics of Meat . London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Google Scholar  

Best, Steve, Anthony J. Nocella, Richard Kahn, Carol Gigliotti, and Lisa Kemmerer. 2007. Introducing Critical Animal Studies. Journal for Critical Animal Studies 5 (1): 4–5.

Branch, Michael P., and Scott Slovic. 2003. Introduction: Surveying the Emergence of Ecocriticism. In The ISLE Reader: Ecocriticism, 1993–2003 , ed. Michael P. Branch and Scott Slovic. Athens/London: University of Georgia Press.

Breeze Harper, A. 2010. Sistah Vegan. Black Female Vegans Speak on Food, Identity, Health, and Society . New York: Lantern Books.

Calarco, Matthew. 2004. Deconstruction Is Not Vegetarianism: Humanism, Subjectivity, and Animal Ethics. Continental Philosophy Review 37 (2): 175–201.

Article   Google Scholar  

Castricano, Jodey, and Rasmus R. Simonsen. 2016. Critical Perspectives on Veganism . London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Book   Google Scholar  

Coetzee, J. M. 2001. The Lives of Animals . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Derrida, Jacques. 1995. ‘Eating Well’, or the Calculation of the Subject. In Points…: Interviews, 1974–1994 , ed. Elisabeth Weber, trans. Peggy Kamuf, 255–287. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

———. 2008. The Animal That Therefore I Am . New York: Fordham University Press.

Fiddes, Nick. 1991. Meat: A Natural Symbol . London: Routledge.

Fudge, Erica. 2002. Animal . London: Reaktion.

Ghosh, Amitav. 2016. The Great Derangement. Climate Change and the Unthinkable . Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.

Halberstam, Judith. 2011. The Queer Art of Failure . Durham/London: Duke University Press.

Huggan, Graham, and Helen Tiffin. 2010. Postcolonial Ecocriticism: Literature, Animals, Environment . Abingdon: Routledge.

Jesella, Kara. 2008. Vegans Exhibiting an Ever Wilder Side for Their Cause. The New York Times , 27 March. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/arts/27iht-vegan.1.11463224.html

Jones, Robert C. 2016. Veganisms. In Critical Perspectives on Veganism , ed. Jodey Castricano and Rasmus R. Simonsen, 15–39. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Kalof, Linda, ed. 2017. The Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

London Economic. 2016. Vegan Food Sales Up by 1500% in Past Year. The London Economic , November. https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/food-drink/vegan-food-sales-up-by-1500-in-past-year/01/11/

Marvin, Garry, and Susan McHugh, eds. 2014. Routledge Handbook of Human-Animal Studies . Abingdon: Routledge.

Muñoz, José Esteban. 2009. Cruising Utopia: The Then and There of Queer Futurity . New York: New York University Press.

Nussbaum, Martha C. 2004. Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Pederson, Helena, and Vasile Stanescu. 2014. Conclusion: Future Directions for Critical Animal Studies. In The Rise of Critical Animal Studies , ed. Nik Taylor and Richard Twine, 262–276. Abingdon: Routledge.

Pick, Anat. 2012. Turning to Animals Between Love and Law. New Formations 76: 68–85.

Plumwood, Val. 1993. Feminism and the Mastery of Nature . London: Routledge.

Preece, Rod. 2008. Sins of the Flesh . Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Ryan, Derek. 2015. Animal Theory: A Critical Introduction . Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Schuster, Joshua. 2016. The Vegan and the Sovereign. In Critical Perspectives on Veganism , ed. Jodey Castricano and Rasmus R. Simonsen, 203–223. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. 2003. Touching Feeling: Affect, Pedagogy, Performativity . Durham/London: Duke University Press.

Spencer, Colin. 1993. The Heretic’s Feast: A History of Vegetarianism . London: Fourth Estate.

Steiner, Gary. 2013. Animals and the Limits of Postmodernism . New York: Columbia University Press.

Stuart, Tristram. 2006. The Bloodless Revolution: Radical Vegetarians and the Discovery of India . London: HarperPress.

Taylor, Nik, and Richard Twine. 2014. The Rise of Critical Animal Studies: From the Margins to the Centre . Abingdon: Routledge.

Twine, Richard. 2010. Intersectional Disgust? Animals and (Eco)feminism. Feminism & Psychology 20 (3): 397–406.

United Nations. 2015. World Population Projected to Reach 9.6 Billion by 2050. UN.org , 29 July. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html

United Nations Environment Programme. 2010. Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Consumption and Production. UNEP.org , June. http://www.unep.fr/shared/publications/pdf/DTIx1262xPA-PriorityProductsAndMaterials_Report.pdf

Vegan Life. 2016. Veganism Booms by 350%. VeganLife Magazine , 18 May. https://www.veganlifemag.com/veganism-booms/

Vegan Society. 2017. Definition of Vegnism. VeganSociety.com . https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism

Weil, Kari. 2012. Thinking Animals: Why Animal Studies Now? New York: Columbia University Press.

Wright, Laura. 2015. The Vegan Studies Project. Food, Animals, and Gender in the Age of Terror . Athens/London: University of Georgia Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Wolfson College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Emelia Quinn

Wadham College, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Benjamin Westwood

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Wolfson College, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

Wadham College, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Quinn, E., Westwood, B. (2018). Introduction: Thinking Through Veganism. In: Quinn, E., Westwood, B. (eds) Thinking Veganism in Literature and Culture. Palgrave Studies in Animals and Literature. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73380-7_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73380-7_1

Published : 25 May 2018

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-319-73379-1

Online ISBN : 978-3-319-73380-7

eBook Packages : Literature, Cultural and Media Studies Literature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Veganism, Moral Motivation and False Consciousness

Susana pickett.

School of History, Politics and International Relations, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

Despite the strength of arguments for veganism in the animal rights literature, alongside environmental and other anthropocentric concerns posed by industrialised animal agriculture, veganism remains only a minority standpoint. In this paper, I explore the moral motivational problem of veganism from the perspectives of moral psychology and political false consciousness. I argue that a novel interpretation of the post-Marxist notion of political false consciousness may help to make sense of the widespread refusal to shift towards veganism. Specifically, the notion of false consciousness fills some explanatory gaps left by the moral psychological notion of akrasia , often understood to refer to a weakness of will. Central to my approach is the idea that animal exploitation is largely systemic and the assumption that moral motivation is inseparable from moral thinking. In this light, the primary obstacle to the adoption of veganism arises not so much from a failure to put genuine beliefs into action, but rather in a shared, distorted way of thinking about animals. Thus, common unreflective objections to veganism may be said to be manifestations of false consciousness.

Introduction

Why does the case for veganism often fail to convince? Insofar as it does sway opinion, why then does it fail to motivate large-scale social change? Whilst moral disagreements are inevitable, the core case for veganism from the animal rights perspective – complemented as it is by environmental, social justice, and global health considerations – is robust. 1 Considering this jointly with commonly held moral principles, one might reasonably expect the percentage of vegans to be much higher, at least in economically developed societies. On the other hand, apathy towards veganism prevails, and common objections to veganism often rest on rationalisations (Piazza 2015 , p. 114). In this paper, I suggest that a failure to accept the moral status of animals as required by veganism may itself constitute a failure of moral motivation (hereinafter referred to as motivation). Central to this position is the premise that moral thinking and motivation are inseparable, and thus thinking does not necessarily precede motivation. If this is the case, then common excuses presented against veganism express failures of motivation rather than intent, by which I mean the motivation to think of animals as being recipients of moral consideration in a manner that conflicts with our social habits and received opinion.

To narrow the scope of my opening questions, I examine the motivational problem from two radically opposing perspectives; namely akrasia and false consciousness. Akrasia – often known as ‘weakness of the will’ – is a failure of practical reasoning whereby individuals act knowingly and willingly against their better judgement. This idea has already been developed by Aaltola ( 2016 ) to explain the widespread reluctance to adopt veganism. Marxian false consciousness, by contrast, is traditionally understood as the social consciousness of an exploited class. It leads individuals to act – not fully knowingly or willingly, and thus not akratically – under a dominant ideology. This ideology may run contrary to one’s best interests, but I argue that it can also taint one’s conception of the ‘greater’ good. I understand false as applying to groups of individuals beyond social class, and argue that it is false consciousness, rather than akrasia, that is more likely to be a persistent condition that dampens motivation. As such, false consciousness may have greater explanatory power than akrasia for the widespread refusal to shift towards veganism.

This paper is divided into three sections. First, I offer a brief overview of the motivational difficulties associated with veganism, specifically the role of willpower and typically presented rationalisations. Second, I give an overview of akrasia and the structure of akratic action. Furthermore, I consider social factors which impact upon our moral thinking, serving to highlight that moral thinking is not reducible to syllogistic-style reasoning. Shortcomings of the application of akrasia lead on to the final section on false consciousness, wherein I explore the persistency of dominant ideologies and their impact upon moral thinking and motivation.

The Vegan Motivational Problem

Moral motivation is typically conceived as the phenomenon of being motivated to do what one judges to be the right thing to do. Naturally, moral reasons can conflict with one’s self-interest and other reasons. In the animal ethics literature, care ethicists, including Luke ( 1992 ), are critical of the mainstream, rationalist approach exemplified by Singer ( 2015 ) and Regan ( 2004 ). The rationalist approach tends to put forward arguments for veganism and vegetarianism without tackling the motivational question of why some people may be convinced by their arguments but fail to put their beliefs into action. By contrast, care ethicists consider humans to have an innate sense of empathy towards animals, which is the basis of moral motivation, but such empathy needs to be cultivated. A problem with this approach is that most people carry on eating animals despite being empathetic to their suffering. Indeed, it is not unusual for carnivores to feel guilt and avoid imagining a slaughtered cow when eating a hamburger (Greenebaum 2012 , p. 316). Hence, it is pertinent to ask why veganism poses such motivational difficulties, considering that the public possesses some moral regard for animals as well as varying degrees of empathy for animals.

Bona Fide Challenges

While some aspects of veganism, such as health and environmental considerations, may be motivated by human self-interest, other dimensions conflict not only with narrow self-interest but also with prudential self-interest. As such, they constitute bona fide reasons to act or side against veganism. ‘Go vegan’ approaches present veganism as being easy, yet some challenges merit attention. These include financial sacrifice, social alienation, and conflict. However, I argue that taste (flavour) is not a bona fide reason.

First, veganism may sometimes involve financial sacrifice. This is because vegan substitutes often cost more (Mills 2019 , p. 17). However, this does not apply to a large part of the population who has access to and can afford plant-based foods. Second, veganism involves alienation. Food is communal in family and social situations, and a vegan at the table can be seen as a threat (Twine 2014 , p. 632). Worse still, vegans often experience exclusion and disapproval (Bresnahan et al. 2016 , p. 13) and such forms of discrimination as ‘vegaphobia’ can arise (Horta 2018 , p. 359). Third, veganism involves moral conflict, not only because of how vegans are perceived but also because of how they perceive others. Raimond Gaita states that vegans who provocatively shout, ‘meat is murder’ exhibit a pathological gap between what they profess and how they act, in that ‘they don’t act as though they live among murderers’ (Gaita 2016 , pp. 22–23). This insight is powerful, even when applied to less polarising claims such as ‘meat involves unnecessary suffering’. From the perspective of some vegans, it can be soul-draining to inhabit a world that celebrates animal consumption and forces ‘question upon question from non-vegan interlocutors’ (Reid 2017 , p. 39), and vegans are often asked to justify their standpoint and then subsequently criticised for being ‘preachy’ (Cole and Morgan 2011 , p. 149). Fourth, radical factions can create tension with other individuals who do not live up to the expectations of the ‘hegemonic vegan frame’, a phrase coined by Wrenn ( 2019 ) to describe highly bureaucratised veganism (often referred to as the ‘vegan police’). There are indeed many ‘veganisms’ (Jones 2016 , p. 24). Hence, vegans may face opposition, not only from non-vegans but also from other vegans.

Finally, Kazez ( 2018 ) argues that food taste is not necessarily trivial. For example, persistently unpalatable food could affect one’s wellbeing. However, I disagree that this constitutes a bona fide argument against veganism, because it is based on a hypothetical consideration that assumes too much since not all vegan food tastes disgusting to most people. As Singer notes, it is not as if animal flesh is uniformly delicious and vegetarian food is uniformly awful (Singer 1980 , p. 333). Given this logic, one can reasonably object on the basis that taste is typically trivial when compared with what Rowlands ( 2013 , p. 6) refers to as an animal’s ‘vital interests’. What is one to make, then, of those seemingly incapable of going vegan owing to their craving for meat? For instance, Eugene Mills recounts how he gave up after trying to be vegan for three days. His cravings for hamburgers became so powerful that he became distracted from the pursuit of important projects (Mills 2019 , p. 19). It is not clear, though, that he deemed veganism to be an important long-term project.

Excepting taste, the aforementioned challenges can constitute bona fide, prima facie reasons for not embracing veganism. When coupled with the realisation that one’s lifestyle choices may have little positive impact globally (this is the phenomenon of ‘causal inefficacy’ which I discuss in more detail later), and after considering the disconnect between consumption, production, and killing, these reasons can become powerful. As a result, it may require substantial willpower to become a vegan against one’s cultural traditions. There are cases, however, where veganism does not require willpower. For example, where veganism is second nature (Lumsden 2017 , p. 221); or one finds joy rather than sacrifice in veganism (Aaltola 2015 , p. 42). In general, though, the act of becoming a vegan does require some degree of willpower.

Willpower in Deliberation

One may object on the grounds that, if animals have no moral status, as Hsiao ( 2015 , p. 284) proposes, then the moral motivational question of veganism does not arise. However, I disagree that this is necessarily the case. It appears to me that moral thinking and motivation are inseparable in the same way that reason and feeling cannot be fully separated, any more than form and content can. Indeed, without motivation, moral thinking would not be possible, for what else would motivate the thinking insofar as moral thinking is not purely theoretical? Hence, when I speak about moral motivation, albeit broadly conceived, I also include the motivation to deliberate about moral matters, including those concerning animals. According to this view, which I refer to as the ‘motivational unity thesis’, motivation is not always something that takes place at the end of a practical deliberation as to whether it is right or wrong to act (this is the narrow conception of motivation). Motivation is also needed to see certain others as worthy of moral deliberation in the first place.

The idea that animals have no moral worth is not commonplace, but the notion that animals are of lesser worth is central to the orthodoxy of animal welfare, a commonly held view which justifies animal suffering according to their utility to humans. This view has been said to explain ‘some of the apparently schizophrenic attitudes to animals that occur in Britain and elsewhere’ (Garner 2013 , p. 80). Regardless of whether one believes that animals are of lesser, or indeed no moral worth (or whether one has ever considered any of this in terms of moral worth), the motivation to think things through with moral seriousness fails when we conclude that we have a right to eat or kill an animal merely because, for example, it is traditional, natural, or simply because the animal was raised on a local farm or one with higher welfare standards than some other farms.

More elaborate justifications against veganism can be provided, but we fail to do justice to animals as the objects of our deliberation if we conclude that safeguarding our lifestyle habits is generally a good enough reason to justify animal exploitation. This constitutes a broad motivational failure insofar as we fail to view animals as individuals who are ‘equally real’, to borrow Thomas Nagel’s phrase (Nagel 1970 , p. 14). Still, one might lodge at least two objections. First, there is no motivational failure if it is not deemed morally objectionable to use animals as commodities in industrialised societies. Second, one might concede that a motivational failure only exists if one holds the conviction that veganism is morally obligatory, yet otherwise fails (akratically) to act accordingly.

Since this paper is not an argument for veganism, I cannot respond to the first objection directly but can link it to the second objection. To clarify, I can invoke the motivational unity thesis to argue that motivational failures can take place at the level of thinking alone (including what kind of beings to include in these considerations), and not merely when it comes to putting beliefs into action. Based on this premise, the exclusion of animals from serious moral consideration is tantamount to moral nihilism and leads only to further rationalisations when probed. Therefore, in addition to the prudential ( bona fide ) reasons against veganism discussed earlier, I now turn my attention to some common rationalisations.

Two Rationalisations

Rationalisations against veganism readily occur when the issue is not thought through. Indeed, we are prone to motivated ignorance (Tam 2019 , p. 6). The objection that animals only exist to be eaten and various other defensive tactics, exhibit apathy in the face of superior evidence to the contrary. Poor argumentation is relevant to motivation because thinking requires effort, while social habits and contempt inhibit it. Many rationalisations against veganism are merely strawmen, yet more sophisticated objections permeate the animal ethics literature, namely the causal inefficacy objection and the principle of unnecessary harm. On the one hand, causal inefficacy is the idea that an individual’s veganism has no impact on the market, specifically that one’s veganism will not make a difference to overall meat consumption. On the other hand, unnecessary harm is the principle (in the current context) by which it is unjustifiable to harm animals when vegan alternatives are available—a principle that is subject to distortion. Both principles are nonetheless interesting as they serve as a double-edged sword, both for and against veganism.

The causal inefficacy objection to veganism has accrued a vast literature which has been recently summarised by Fischer ( 2020 ). It is related to the ‘free-rider’ problem of rational choice theory, although my concern here is with the role of motivation in our thinking about causal inefficacy serving effectively as a proverbial ‘get out of jail free card’. There is a parallel with global warming, whereby people manage feelings of hopelessness with expressions such as ‘what can one person do?’, often to avoid thinking about a challenging issue (Cole & Morgan 2011 , p. 156). In fact, from the existence of a global problem alone, nothing clearly and directly follows with regards to individual responsibility.

In this context, group identity can be powerful, since a group can be more impactful and offer moral support: ‘within the safe bubble of the vegan community, its practitioners are noticeably joyous’ (Twine 2014 , p. 637). Relatedly, hope plays an important role in moral thinking. Moody-Adams ( 2017 , p. 155–6) discusses the motivating power of hope, specifically how those social movements which deepened our understanding of justice and compassion were driven by those who were confident in acting on their moral convictions and hopeful of moral change. Similarly, Agnes Tam emphasises the power of “We-reasoning” as a distinctive form of communitarian rationality (Tam 2019 , p. 3). Naturally, this does not mean that one abandons self-critical thinking, but it is a potential pitfall of identity groups (Fukuyama 2018 , p. 115).

As Garner points out, the phrase ‘unnecessary harm’ is somewhat vague, a catch-all that can have political advantages in supporting a spectrum of speciesist positions depending on geographical and historical factors (Garner 2013 , p. 81). For example, animal harm is viewed as a necessary evil in support of traditional forms of hospitality and economic interests. Central to the manipulation of these principles is the conflation of difficult, often potentially intractable empirical and analytic problems with practical moral matters about how one should live. In this vein, Reid has pointed out that simply not having a fully worked out theory of veganism is not sufficient reason, in of itself, for not becoming a vegan, in the same way as not having a fully worked out theory of knowledge is not a justification for epistemic scepticism (Reid 2017 , p. 38). Indeed, veganism can be seen as a practical stance in response to animal exploitation, even though it can only ever be aspirational, for it is not possible to avoid causing harm altogether (Gruen and Jones 2016 , p. 157–158). In order to reach the vegan practical conclusion, one need not have to resolve intractable problems of causation, collective responsibility, or necessity.

I have argued, because moral thinking and motivation are not entirely separable, that distorted thinking can dampen motivation, while motivational failures may also result in morally distorted thinking. Take, for instance, the conflation of difficult empirical and philosophical matters with practical moral considerations. Next, I consider how philosophers have traditionally accounted for the breakdown of moral motivation in practical deliberation, and how this can be applied to the vegan motivational problem.

Omnivore’s Akrasia

Akrasia , sometimes referred to as a weakness of will or incontinence, is often understood to mean an intentional action contrary to one’s better judgement. It is, by definition, rather a failure of practical rationality in the shape of a motivational failure. The literature on akrasia dates back to ancient Greek philosophy and the contemporary literature in moral psychology is often technical. To be concise, I assume that akrasia is possible and follow Davidson’s ( 1980 ) definition of akrasia as an action that is free, intentional, and contrary to a full-blown practical judgement.

In doing x an agent acts incontinently if and only if: (a) the agent does x intentionally; (b) the agent believes there is an alternative action y open to him; and (c) the agent judges that, all things considered, it would be better to do y than to do x . (Davidson 1980 , p. 22)

Practical reasoning often starts with prima facie judgements, whereupon various reasons are weighted against each other until an evaluative conclusion is derived. When deliberating whether one ought to become a vegan, prima facie reasons might include animal welfare, health, or environmental concerns (notwithstanding myriad other reasons for and against veganism, including one’s psychological and social wellbeing, or how one’s actions will be perceived by others). An individual may accept good overall reasons for adopting veganism, yet fail to embrace it in practice. Indeed, this seems quite plausible. Elisa Aaltola ( 2015 ) coined the term ‘omnivore’s akrasia ’ to refer to the state arising in those who voluntarily consume animal products despite believing that they have been produced by immoral means. Could widespread akrasia , then, play a major role in preventing a significant proportion of the public from adopting veganism? I argue that, despite its explanatory power, the traditional approach is subject to two limitations.

The Limits of Traditional Akrasia

A limitation of akrasia is that moral decisions, such as the decision to go vegan, may not necessarily be the outcome of practical deliberation. On the flip side, one’s better judgement may be faulty. In explanation, ‘all things considered’, or prima facie judgements may not necessarily yield a correct moral answer, not least because we are limited as epistemic and moral beings. Some philosophers (Arpaly 2000 ; Audi 1990 ; McIntyre 2006 ) have even questioned whether akrasia is necessarily irrational. What if the better judgement itself is faulty, or if the desires which ground the ‘better judgement’ fail to represent the agent’s overall desires and interests?

I shall illustrate this with a powerful example from Bennett's reflections on Huckleberry Finn (Bennett 1974 ), so that I can then explore how this applies to veganism. In Mark Twain’s famous novel, Huck believes that, all things considered, the right thing to do is to turn his slave friend Jim in to the authorities, but he fails to do so. ‘Huck hasn’t the strength of will to do what he sincerely thinks he ought to do’ (Bennett 1974 , p. 126). He acts simply out of sympathy for Jim. This turns akrasia on its head, for Huck acts out of moral necessity (he cannot do otherwise), yet he acts against his better judgement.

Similarly, veganism may not necessarily be the direct outcome of practical deliberation. For some, the commitment to veganism may happen over and above any prima facie considerations. It may be the case that one already has an inner necessity. For example, one is moved by the visceral repugnance of the slaughter and ingestion of animals or a deep sense of compassion.

Thus, one could argue that the akrasia explanation of non-veganism involves an overly simplistic, syllogistic account of moral thinking, largely ignoring the social context. Individuals are not disembodied moral agents capable of making rational decisions independently of the social contex—there is much more at stake than merely prima facie reasons in terms of practical deliberations about what one morally ought to do. Could a more nuanced, socially informed notion of akrasia serve to overcome this limitation?

Sociopolitical Akrasia

Aaltola ( 2015 , 2016 ) takes a nuanced sociopolitical approach to omnivore’s akrasia . Like Amelie Rorty ( 1997 ), she views akrasia as a social problem, in that social forces prevent veganism by placing individuals within a continual state of akrasia wherein conscious deliberation and self-control are futile. These forces include ambiguity or conflict at the root of our institutions, habit, consumerism, and the culture of immediate reward or sensory hedonism. Significantly, the meat-eaters’ paradox, in which a societal love for certain animals such as dogs and cats is cultivated, while cows, pigs, and other animals, which are equally sentient, are mistreated and slaughtered, is entrenched within our institutions (Aaltola 2016 , p. 118).

Despite these conflictual beliefs, 2 most individuals believe that food choices are rational but overlook how these choices are grounded via emotive, cultural, or otherwise more ambiguous justifications (Aaltola 2016 , p. 117). Habit perpetuates the meat-eaters’ paradox for, although the original reason for eating meat was survival, it is no longer essential for a large part of the world’s population, so it is in some ways a mindless habit and one that is exacerbated by consumerism. Given this, asking individuals to exercise self-control is insufficient (Aaltola 2016 , p. 124). Indeed, ‘our akratic choices may take place beyond the possibility of conscious deliberation, and thereby beyond the possibility of conscious hedonism or egoism’ (Aaltola 2016 , p. 131). This results in a vicious circle wherein contempt may feed moral apathy and we may thus become apathetic to act altruistically. Therefore, Aaltola ( 2016 , p. 135) concludes that we are in a state of continual akrasia .

Whilst such application of akrasia is insightful, akrasia may not be the best explanation for the phenomenon of widespread omnivorism. Crucially, the possibility of perpetual akrasia seems absurd, especially given that akrasia is, by definition, free intentional action contrary to one’s better judgement. In the context of permanent akrasia , as described by Aaltola, individuals are not acting freely or intentionally, and their better judgement is not to become vegans. As such, they are not akratically failing to become vegans: they never set out to do so in the first place, so there is no motivational failure as the rational outcome of practical deliberation.

Similarly, akrasia may not be the best notion to incorporate mindlessness, self-deception or voluntary ignorance. The notion of akrasia struggles to accommodate the fact that not all our thinking is transparent, bona fide , or easily moulded into practical syllogisms. For instance, it has been said that, once we are accustomed to behaving in ways that have implicit normative content, we struggle to contemplate the possibility of change and may thus engage in self-deception to justify wrongful actions (Cooke 2017 , p. 9). John Searle exemplified one such deception: ‘I try not to think about animal rights because I fear I’d have to become a vegetarian if I worked it out consistently.’ (Cooke 2017 , p. 10).

Indeed, such deception is more likely to be widely shared, given that most people give similar excuses against veganism, commonly referred to as the 4Ns (the belief that eating meat is natural, normal, necessary, and nice; Piazza et al. 2015 ). For Luke ( 1992 , p. 106), such rationalisations consume abundant social energy. However, one can object that very little thinking power is normally used, even though the passions may be inflamed. Given these limitations, one must ask whether the notion of false consciousness would fare any better in accounting for such persistent motivational gaps and largely unreflective responses to veganism or be more cohesive with the idea that animal exploitation is largely systemic.

Omnivore’s False Consciousness

False consciousness is a post-Marxian notion. Although Marx did not use the phrase ‘fase consciousness’, the notion is embedded in much of his thinking. Thus, Miller ( 1972 , p. 433) argues that a broad interpretation of the related concept of ideology, understood as applying to theories, belief-systems and practices involving the use of ideas, has great explanatory power concerning the persistency and influence of ideologies over the actions of the groups who adopt such ideologies. Crucially, if such a group is confronted by others holding incompatible ideas, ‘it has no resources to fall back upon, it can only reaffirm its original faith’ (Miller 1972 , p. 433). Alternatively, if the ideology is seen primarily as an explanatory framework, then ‘the ideology is given repeated empirical confirmation, through the selection of what is perceived’ (Miller 1972 , p. 433). When ideologies function in these ways, they can be said to involve false consciousness. If Miller is correct, and omnivorism can be shown to depend on an ideology that necessarily involves false consciousness, then this may account for the persistency of omnivorism over reasoned arguments, thus filling the gaps left by omnivore’s akrasia .

In Marxist theory, false consciousness is essentially deemed to be political in nature and refers to the social consciousness of the proletariat as an exploited class under capitalism. It is thereby related to the concept of ideological power and forms the basis of Luke’s third dimension of power, wherein the illegitimate use of power by one group over another confers the power to mislead (Lukes 2005 , p. 149). To put it simply, it is the power to control what groups think as being right, resulting in biased acceptance without question. Marx and Engels used the concept of ideology to refer to ‘the distorted beliefs intellectuals [hold] about society and the power of their own ideas. Those who produced ideologies suffered from false consciousness: they were deluded about their own beliefs.’ (Eyerman 1981 , p. 43). Given this tenet, one may be puzzled by my use of false consciousness, as it seems to shift the construct of veganism to being about people rather than about animals. How, then, is false consciousness relevant to the problem of motivation in veganism, given that animals are the exploited group in question, even to the extent that some theorists, such as Perlo ( 2002 , p.306), have likened animals to the proletariat?

The notion of false consciousness has evolved since its origins, and my intention here is to expand its application further. Marx’s concept was further developed by Gramsci, Lukacs and the early Frankfurt School, and later expanded to apply to any social class with a ‘limited form of experience in society’ (Eyerman 1981 , p. 43–44). Thus, it is not limited to Marxian class and has been more applied broadly to groups both before and after the rise of capitalism. For example, Michael Rosen ( 2016 , p. 10) sees Marxian false consciousness as a critique and the development of rationalistic understandings of a previously unformulated notion of false consciousness, beginning with Plato, for whom irrationality of the soul led to the injustices of the state; and Aristotle, for whom false consciousness is necessarily akratic . Omnivore’s false consciousness may thus be viewed as a novel development and a particular application of false consciousness 3 to a broad majority of humans who practise omnivorism in economically developed societies.

Narrow and Broad False Consciousness

So, what then is false about false consciousness? False consciousness is often portrayed in terms of one being misled about one’s true interests. However, there is a distinction arising between being blinded by one’s interests (i.e., being impetuous) and being blind to them, where false consciousness is often associated with the latter (Runciman 1969 , p. 303). The self-interest interpretation, however, omits the altruistic and moral dimensions of human thinking, whereby one may also be blind not only to others’ interests but also to their moral dimension. Traditionally, false consciousness is about group interest and social ontology, but I shall argue that it can also distort moral thinking in much the same way as it distorts non-moral thinking. The notion that Marxism is not totally abstracted from morality is not novel (e.g., Lukes 1985 ), so I will instead set the context before I explain how it bears on veganism.

Marx avoided talk about morality, not only because he hated preaching and was distrustful of the moralist per se (Popper 1995 , p. 220), but because he saw contemporary morality as being part of the bourgeois superstructure, in which class morality added an extra layer of false consciousness. The worker believes, according to Singer, that capitalist has a moral right to the profits 4 (Singer 2018 , p. 83). Although Lenin and others claimed that Marx’s theory was purely scientific, it has since been argued that Marx held a normative position, not least because of his desire to end capitalism (Cochrane 2010 , p. 95; Singer 2018 , p. 82), his hatred of servility, and his ‘desire for a better world that it is hard not to see as moral’ (Lukes 1985 , p. 3).

Central to the Marxian notion of false consciousness is the tenet that both the capitalist and proletariat are afflicted by it and, thus, that the proletariat believed, whether implicitly or explicitly, that the capitalist had a moral or legitimate right to profit. If proletarian Jim held such a belief about himself, he would also believe that the capitalist had a right to the labour of his fellow proletarians. In this world view, the proletariat is both wronged by the capitalist and unaware that they have been wronged. Similarly, capitalists had so distorted or delimited moral ideas insofar as they too failed to acknowledge the true interests of the exploited group and were unaware of their wrongdoing. In the case of animals, the public largely carries on supporting systemic practices of animal-exploitation without acknowledging the wrongs inflicted on animals in its name.

Hence, false consciousness may be understood narrowly as relating to either self or group interest or, more broadly, as including an altruistic moral dimension in the sense of limiting such a dimension. Indeed, if I am blind to my own true interests, then I may not necessarily be receptive to those of other people or those of animals. My claim is not that there is a causal link between blindness to one’s own interests and blindness to the interests of others, but rather that it is absurd to contend that false consciousness impacts only one’s self-interested thinking. Crucially, false consciousness may so taint one’s conception of the good and limit the moral self, that it has the effect of occluding the motivational difficulties of veganism. Hence, the akratic break (motivational failure) does not actually take place, at least not explicitly.

This broad interpretation of false consciousness presupposes a close link between alienation and false consciousness. As Rosen states in his discussion of Marx’s early writings on alienation as a form of life, ‘the alienated worker’s failure to recognize himself in the product of his labour and the failure of isolated individuals to recognize each other fully as fellow human beings are expressions of false consciousness that are lived and experienced before they are theorized about or reflected upon.’ (Rosen 2016 , p. 35). In this sense, the moral self is not impervious to false consciousness. This is interesting within the context of the vegan debate, as the cumulative case for veganism (i.e., the case from a wide range of perspectives) encompasses both moral and enlightened self-interested strands. If we deem both the narrow and broad sense of false consciousness to be appropriate, then this may help to explain how a substantial proportion of the general public may be somewhat blinded by the dominant animal-exploiting ideology in contrasting, yet complementary ways, so as to render the ideology quite impenetrable.

This narrow sense of false consciousness applies to the case for veganism from either anthropocentric or enlightened self-interest perspectives. Strictly, these perspectives support plant-based living as opposed to fully blown ethical veganism but are largely consistent with it. Overall, exploitative animal practices are agreed to have a detrimental impact on the environment, sustainability, and climate change (Rosi 2017 ; Sabaté & Soret 2014 ), as well as global human health (Tuso 2013 ) and that of future generations (Deckers 2011 ). Zoonotic diseases such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have also been traced to wet markets where animals are confined within unnatural and unsanitary conditions (Singer 2020 , pp. 82–83). Despite these, and other harms to humans, the animal agricultural complex has a vested interest in continued animal exploitation. Moreover, the advertising industry and media can exercise tremendous power in perpetuating the desire to consume animal products.

There are at least two difficulties with the attribution of narrow false consciousness in these scenarios. First, the oppressor and oppressed (or exploiter and exploited) groups are not distinct, for at least some humans count as the exploited, even though they too contribute to animal exploitation through their consumption and labour. Although this complicates matters, it does not in of itself make the premise of false consciousness impossible, for (unlike Marxian social class) an individual can belong to more than one group at any one time. In this respect, animals are posited as the oppressed, yet humans are both oppressor and oppressed. In fact, the presumption of such a stark dichotomy of classes would have very little application in terms of the animal agricultural complex which lacks any clearly defined boundaries.

Second, false consciousness is supposed to affect both the exploiter and exploited alike, but it is not altogether clear why it would not be in the interest of the exploiter to exploit, particularly in terms of material self-interest. It may well be that the exploiting group is subject to false consciousness but is not necessarily deceived about its own material self-interest. After all, many people’s livelihoods depend on animal agriculture, which does not go against their immediate, material self-interest. However, the exploiter might be in denial about the consequences of their own exploitation. In Hegel’s dialectic, which influenced Marx’s thinking, the master (to his own detriment) becomes too dependent on the slave. When translated in terms of the current exploitation of animals and nature, exploiters act in such a way as though they are blind to the ultimate consequences of their actions, yet the crucial difference here lies between enlightened self-interest in the medium term and the long run, for it is the latter that false consciousness is supposed to affect.

On the other hand, in a somewhat broader sense, false consciousness acts against the case for veganism from the point of view of ethical and political perspectives such as animal rights and care ethics. These are deemed to be ‘veganism for the animals’ perspectives that constitute the core of ethical veganism, which are not defensible from the standpoint of self-interest. In this context, false consciousness might serve as a good explanatory match for two phenomena; namely the absence of moral reflection on whether one ought to become a vegan (in light of the meat-eater's paradox), and second, the poverty of thinking exemplified by the public’s common rebuttals in response to arguments for veganism.

Although not all objections or negative responses to veganism are crude, there is a widespread social malaise in the form of a prevalent moral apathy towards the exploitation of animals. This matter is political, not only from the perspective that humans exercise illegitimate power over animals but also that animals are worthy of political justice as argued, for example, in The Political Turn in Animal Ethics (Garner and O'Sullivan 2016 ). Further, it could be construed that the public’s commonplace objections to veganism are socially determined and thus often devoid of individual self-expression. The issue is also a very personal one, in the sense that moral thinking is inextricably personal, yet such thinking may at times be thwarted by sociopolitical imperatives. When deliberating on whether one ought to become a vegan, insofar as one engages in moral discourse at all, the moral problem is, and ought to be, inescapably one’s own in the sense that one cannot pass it on to someone else to resolve on one’s behalf (on this topic see Gaita 1989 , p. 128), let alone rely on the unexamined opinions of the majority. However, this is precisely what tends to happen when people confront veganism. The next step, then, is to relate common, unreflective objections to veganism to aspects of political false consciousness.

Four Features of False Consciousness

To deconstruct how thinking can be systematically distorted, I build on Miller’s account of the four dimensions of false consciousness (Miller 1972 , p. 443–444), sketching how these features may be manifested in omnivore’s false consciousness. The four interrelated features are conceptual inadequacy, isolation of phenomena, eternalisation, and reification.

First, false consciousness involves a degree of conceptual inadequacy in that it leads to fallacious reasoning . For example, generalisations based on superficial similarity, whereupon subsequent analysis can reveal them to be disparate. Conceptual inadequacy includes such common injunctions against veganism as animals being unintelligent, carnivorism natural, and vegans self-righteous. These claims expose distortion as empirical analysis – and frequently linguistic or logical analysis alone – can prove them to be fallacious.

For instance, does it follow from the premise that animals are less intelligent that we have a moral right to eat them? Does the fact that something is natural necessarily make an action or attitude morally justifiable? Are all vegans self-righteous? Even if they all are, this latter argument is effectively ad hominem and therefore invalid. Similarly, the idea that veganism is impossible because nobody can ever avoid partaking in harming animals is to misunderstand the very concept of veganism. It exhibits fallacious reasoning by misusing the concept of vagueness. Just because there are borderline cases between a child and an adult, or shades of grey, it does not necessarily follow that nobody can ever be an adult, or that nothing can be truly black. The same holds true for veganism. While nobody would seriously deny that adulthood or true blackness are possible, many are prepared to subject veganism to a reductio ad absurdum . These common examples of conceptual inadequacy are not isolated mistakes, or merely manifestations of the ignorance of specific information, but rather are fundamental ways in which thought fails. They are manifestations of how the acceptance of the moral and political legitimacy (or neutrality) of animal exploitation is deeply rooted within the collective consciousness and embedded within our social institutions.

Second, the process involves the isolation of phenomena, notably a refusal to see an instance of individual behaviour as being part of a wider social system. For example, the belief that one exercises free will in consumer choices 5 and, therefore, that one’s decision to eat animals is autonomous when one is, in actuality, making socially conditioned decisions which are influenced by the meat industry. Hence, Nibert talks of a socially engineered public consciousness, highlighting how organisations such as the ‘Center for Consumer Freedom’ exploit both the concepts of ‘freedom’ and ‘consumer choice’ (Nibert 2013 , p. 266). Since others are doing the same, these attitudes are considered to be justificatory of the wider system.

Third, it involves eternalisation, whereby conventional relationships or characteristics are regarded as being permanently fixed within the nature of things. For example, in medieval Europe, society was ranked hierarchically from God down to inanimate objects. Similarly, the hierarchical belief in speciesism is effectively an extension of the belief that ‘might is right’, wherein biological omnivorism is extrapolated to entail a right to exploit animals. For Cooke, the view of the innate inferiority of animals is embedded within our social consciousness, and the moral imagination must be cultivated to break out of such self-deception (Cooke 2017 , p. 14–15). This feature of false consciousness serves as the key to perpetuating certain practices.

Let us consider an example of eternalisation, such as the common belief (in some countries) that a turkey must be the centrepiece of the Christmas dinner table, as tradition dictates, in such a way that a vegan alternative is deemed to be out of the question. In what way is this thinking distorted? How does it manifest as a form of false consciousness? One of the distortions revolves around the false belief that tradition is alone sufficient justification for engaging in a specific practice. Some traditions, such as forced marriages, are morally wrong and so tradition alone does not morally justify a practice. It constitutes a distorted form of thinking rather than a question of holding a false belief, as most individuals living in liberal societies do accept that tradition alone does not morally justify a practice. It manifests as a form of false consciousness insofar as the distortion is not politically neutral.

Like most animal agriculture, the mass confinement, fattening and slaughter of hundreds of millions of turkeys aged between 14 and 24 weeks for Christmas involves the illegitimate use of power of humans over animals. Yet, such traditions continue, not only because people enjoy certain flavours and family traditions, but also because a powerful industry lobby has a vested interest in perpetuating and normalising this form of animal exploitation. For example, in December 2019, the UK’s National Farmers Union (NFU) took issue with a BBC commercial in which a cartoon turkey wearing an ‘I Love Vegans’ sweater announced ‘less of us have been gobbled this year’ (The Telegraph 2019 ). The NFU feared that the BBC was promoting a political view. What was not questioned, however, was that the farming and killing of animals may not be a politically neutral standpoint.

Finally, it involves reification. It reduces individuals to the status of mere objects of fixed properties, their individuality denied, similar to the archetypal Nazi depiction of the Jew (Miller 1972 , p. 444). Animals, too, are objectified when reduced to the status of commodities such as forms of food or modes of transportation, or even being owned as pets. As expressed by Cole and Morgan ( 2011 , p. 149), ‘ethics are simply ruled out of order by the prior to objectification and invisibilisation of nonhuman animals that speciesist material and cultural practices instantiate’. This takes place on a large scale, even when people are generally aware that animals such as the Christmas turkey are (or rather were) individuals, not mere things. Still, animals are essentially commodified, an idea that also links into Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism.

Miller’s analysis provides a framework for dissecting how common objections to veganism, and the belief systems that ground them, are distorted and thereby largely unmovable. It gives weight to the idea that these objections manifest false consciousness. As a form of political false consciousness, omnivore’s false consciousness involves distorted and limited forms of thinking that are not often scrutinised. I have only touched on a small number of common objections to veganism, although there are many others, such as those exemplified in a defensive omnivore board. 6 When one of these notions is challenged, many more excuses are proffered.

What these distorted forms of thinking lack in terms of sobriety they make up for in intuitive persuasiveness by conforming to a widely accepted worldview or way of life. According to this worldview, nonhuman animals are inferior to human animals in politically significant ways that accord the latter the moral entitlement to exploit the former. As Miller recognises, one cannot easily fight instances of false consciousness by pointing out isolated errors. Thus a broader stance is needed, yet it may not be possible to avoid false consciousness altogether (Miller 1972 , p. 444). Therefore, one might ask what makes false consciousness not only possible but also so persistent and prevalent?

The Persistency of Ideologies

The link between false consciousness and ideology is key to its persistency. Gauthier ( 1997 , p.27–28) points out that the notion of an ‘ideology’ is employed inconsistently, yet is generally regarded as a pejorative aspect of our consciousness. He sees ideology as a theoretical construct, part of the ‘deep structure of self-consciousness’, that is, the capacity to conceive oneself relative to others and therefore to act in light of this conception of oneself as a member of the human species. Although it can be the subject of reflection, it is necessarily pre-reflective. This sounds puzzling, but Gauthier sees a similarity between ideology and language in that ‘both conceal a deep structure which unconsciously affects conscious activity’ (Gauthier 1997 , p. 28). Even if one cannot think outside the boundaries of a specific language or ideology, reflection and critique are still possible, thereby enabling moral progress.

Like languages, ideologies also promote social commonality. One of the main functions of social institutions is to maintain and transmit a common ideology (Gauthier 1997 , p. 28). Hence, individuals with very different ideologies, such as vegans and non-vegans, may find communication difficult. Moreover, for Marx, an ideology was not merely false but served an intentional role both in upholding the extant social order (Rawls 2008 , p. 361) and continuing the status quo in terms of the exploitation of the proletariat. For example, hiding the act of robbery within the construct of capitalism is essential. Similarly, exploiters of animals do not want to be perceived to be exploitative, whether these agents be the state or the lawmakers protecting animal-exploiting institutions. Farmers’ associations have privileged access in terms of shaping the viewpoint of the media and in influencing agricultural policy and legislation (Benton 1993 , p. 160). For example, both the US and Australia have introduced ‘ag-gag’ laws that essentially criminalise the dissemination of information about the treatment of animals (O'Sullivan 2016 , p. 53). Moreover, the institutionalised praise of exploiters and punishment of animal liberationists is not a morally neutral position with regard to conceptions of the good that liberal states purport to do. As Schmitz says, ‘the animal question debunks the appearance of neutrality’ (Schmitz 2016 , p. 42).

If we interpret ideologies as being pre-reflective, this aids in explaining their persistency and evasiveness from rational argumentation. As Miller suggests, repeated selective perception confirms the ideology (Miller 1972 , p. 433), yet it is difficult to construct a simple verification or falsification test, as ideologies are false at the level of the whole (Miller 1972 , p. 435). As such, they are not a mere set of commonly held ideas, but rather embody attitudes, common behaviours, and practices. Thus, the ideology that dominates our relationship with animals in developed societies gives rise to a level of false consciousness. It is pre-reflective in that societies embrace omnivorism without perceiving the moral need to justify it, although it is possible to reflect on it. When the dominant ideology is challenged, rationalisations can ensue. Since an ideology is not a specific set of beliefs that can be proven to be true or false in isolation, it is very difficult to ‘prove’ that omnivorism is morally wrong, or that veganism is right in such a way that any rational moral agent could be convinced.

One might object to the premise that attributing false consciousness is arrogant, for it requires a privileged perspective in terms of intellect and education. As Polsby states, ‘the presumption that the “real” interests of a class can be assigned to them by an analyst allows the analyst to charge “false consciousness” when the class in question disagrees with the analyst’ (Polsby 1963 , p. 22–3). However, is the attribution of false consciousness necessarily arrogant? Lukes ( 2005 , p. 149–150) argues that recognising the possibility of false consciousness is neither condescending, nor inherently illiberal, or even paternalistic. He considers, for example, J.S. Mill’s analysis of the subjection of Victorian women to the rule of men (in Mill 2009 [1869], p. 25) which can be interpreted as showing how most women were subject to false consciousness in the form of voluntary servitude, as opposed to coercive power. In light of such historic examples, and the fact that gender equality is now largely undisputed, the objection from arrogance is begs a question in that it denies the possibility that anyone might ever be politically deceived. It is ad hominem insofar as it attacks the character of the analyst, not the soundness of their views. Similarly, if future generations were to embrace the cause of animal rights and veganism, the attribution of an omnivore’s false consciousness to previous generations may then not seem too paternalistic.

Some Marxists could argue that the notion of false consciousness simply does not apply here. That may well be the case if indeed false consciousness is taken literally in a Marxist context. Instead, I have argued that there is a broad reading of false consciousness according to which it can narrow the moral self precisely because the interests of animals are not perceived in such a way as to trigger the moral motivation to practice veganism. In fact, I have attempted to detach the concept from Marxist theory as far as possible, so that one does not have to embrace Marxism in order to be able to accept how such a concept (and related concepts) may command useful explanatory power where the notion of akrasia falls short. 1

If there is such a thing as omnivore’s false consciousness, it would seem to follow that animal liberation (from human oppression) requires human liberation from omnivore’s false consciousness. Broad false consciousness may need to be confronted head-on through practices that promote more reflective and altruistic thinking (Cooke 2017 ). Narrow false consciousness, on the other hand, may be tackled directly by promoting some of the benefits of plant-based living (Fetissenko 2011 ), or indirectly by creating the conditions that normalise such a lifestyle (Lumsden 2017 ), for example, by making the shift from animal to plant agriculture easier and more desirable for farmers, or through the technological development of realistic alternatives to culling animals (e.g. in vitro meat; see Milburn 2016 ). A drawback of the self-interest approach, however, is that it only favours animals contingently in those instances where enlightened human self-interest happens to be convergent with those of animals. These challenges make a global shift to veganism not only fraught but also currently inaccessible to those on the opposite side of the debate. Considering how humans have habitually exploited animals, the future for most animals looks grim. On the other hand, social movements depend on hope and persist in the belief in moral progress has been said to be a regulative concept (Moody-Adams 2017 , p. 154).

Concluding Remarks

Starting from the assumption that there is a strong case for veganism in the literature, and the hypothesis that moral thinking and motivation are inseparable, I have considered how akrasia and false consciousness are ‘conceptual pathways’ through which our practical thinking about animals is distorted. Omnivore’s akrasia leaves some important gaps, for it is delimited to free and voluntary action against one’s better judgement. As such, the phenomenon of widespread omnivorism in developed societies may be better explained in terms of omnivore’s false consciousness (but I am not thereby suggesting that animal liberationists should embrace Marxism). Where omnivore’s false consciousness arises, there is no clear or explicit motivational failure to become a vegan, precisely because there is insufficient reflection for an akratic break to take occur. Further work in the field of moral psychology is evidently needed to unravel the motivational unity thesis, a theorem upon which this paper leans heavily.

Insofar as veganism expresses an ideology, it cannot be proven either to be true or morally right through arguments alone in such a way as to persuade any rational being or otherwise fully-fledged moral agent. Veganism is, as such, not an analytic truth to be derived from abstract moral principles but rather a moral way of life. Arguably, it is also a moral requirement. Principles such as causal inefficacy and unnecessary harm can be turned against veganism via analytic rationalisations which exploit scepticism and err on the side of narrow human self-interest, rather than an altruistic stance towards animals. Despite difficult technical and analytic considerations, one can experience veganism as an inescapable imperative; as a spiritual necessity; or as a powerful political identity against the oppression of animals. As such, some animal advocates may feel utter despair and therefore struggle to comprehend how others are not similarly moved. They may experience helplessness as to why common reasons against veganism are so weak. This paper is but one expression of such puzzlement, and a first attempt to make sense through the hitherto underexplored notion of false consciousness within the field of animal ethics.

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the MANCEPT ‘Just Animals? The Future of the Political Turn in Animal Ethics’ workshop in September 2019. I am especially grateful to Robert Garner, Steve Cooke, Josh Milburn and Eva Meijer for their comments and support. I am also greatly indebted to the anonymous reviewers of this journal.

Self-funded.

Declaration

The authors declares that they have no conflict of interest.

1 For a concise exposition of the cumulative case for veganism see Stephens ( 1994 ). For more recent arguments see Francione ( 2008 ), Huemer ( 2019 ) and Singer ( 2020 ).

2 There is no conflict if animals are viewed and treated only according to their purpose to humans, but it can be argued that this is how things are (the animal welfare orthodoxy), not how they ought to be.

3 False consciousness is often assumed without explanation in the Critical Animal Studies (CAS) literature (e.g., Nibert 2002 , p. 247).

4 Marx may not have thought that the proletariat held such explicit beliefs given that they had no access to the superstructure, but the relevant idea is that the proletariat was blind to their interests.

5 Vegans too can be consumerist.

6 A compilation of poor excuses against veganism such as ‘we have carnivore teeth’. For an example see https://vegansaurus.com/post/254784826/defensive-omnivore-bingo .

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Aaltola E. Politico-moral apathy and omnivore's akrasia: Views from the rationalist tradition. Politics and Animals. 2015; 1 :35–49. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aaltola E. The problem of akrasia: moral cultivation and socio-political resistance. In: Cavalieri Paola., editor. Philosophy and the Politics of Animal Liberation. Palgrave Macmillan; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Arpaly N. On acting rationally against one's best judgment. Ethics. 2000; 110 (3):488–513. doi: 10.1086/233321. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Audi R. Weakness of will and rational action. Australasian Journal of Philosophy. 1990; 68 (3):270–281. doi: 10.1080/00048409012344301. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bennett J. The conscience of huckleberry finn. Philosophy. 1974; 49 (188):123–134. doi: 10.1017/S0031819100048014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Benton T. Natural relations: Animal rights, human rights and the environment. Verso; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bresnahan M, Zhuang J, Zhu X. Why is the vegan line in the dining hall always the shortest? understanding vegan stigma. Stigma and Health. 2016; 1 (1):3–15. doi: 10.1037/sah0000011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cochrane A. An introduction to animals and political theory. Palgrave Macmillan; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole M, Morgan K. Veganism contra speciesism: Beyond debate. The Brock Review. 2011; 12 (1):144–163. doi: 10.26522/br.v12i1.568. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooke S. Imagined utopias: Animals rights and the moral imagination. Journal of Political Philosophy. 2017; 25 (4):e1–e18. doi: 10.1111/jopp.12136. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Davidson D. Essays on actions and events. Clarendon Press; 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
• Deckers J. Negative “GHIs”, the right to health protection, and future generations. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 2011; 8 (2):165. doi: 10.1007/s11673-011-9295-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eyerman R. False consciousness and ideology in marxist theory. Acta Sociologica. 1981; 24 (1–2):43–56. doi: 10.1177/000169938102400104. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fetissenko M. Beyond morality: Developing a new rhetorical strategy for the animal rights movement. Journal of Animal Ethics. 2011; 1 (2):150–175. doi: 10.5406/janimalethics.1.2.0150. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Francione G. Animals as persons: Essays on the abolition of animal exploitation. Columbia University Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fischer B. The ethics of eating animals: Usually bad, sometimes wrong, often permissible. Routledge; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fukuyama F. Identity: Contemporary identity politics and the struggle for recognition. Profile Books; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaita R. The personal in ethics. In: Phillips DZ, Winch P, editors. Wittgenstein: Attention to particulars. Springer; 1989. pp. 124–150. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaita R. The philosopher's dog. Routledge Classics; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garner R. A theory of justice for animals: Animal rights in a nonideal world. Oxford University Press; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garner R, O'Sullivan S. The Political turn in animal ethics. Rownman and Littlefield International; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gauthier D. The social contract as ideology. In: Goodin RE, Pettit P, editors. Contemporary political philosophy: An anthology. Blackwell Publishers Ltd; 1997. pp. 27–44. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gruen L, Jones RC. Veganism as an aspiration. In: Bramble Ben, Fischer Bob., editors. The moral complexities of eating meat. Oxford University Press; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Greenebaum, J. B. (2012). Managing impressions: “Face-Saving” strategies of vegetarians and vegans. Humanity & Society, 36 (4), 309–325.
• Horta O. Discrimination against vegans. Res Publica. 2018; 24 (3):359–373. doi: 10.1007/s11158-017-9356-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hsiao T. In defense of eating meat. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 2015; 28 (2):277–291. doi: 10.1007/s10806-015-9534-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huemer M. Dialogues on ethical vegetarianism. Routledge; 2019. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ilea R. Singer, wittgenstein, and morally motivating examples. Between the Species. 2017; 22 (1):1. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones, R. C. (2016). Veganisms. In Critical Perspectives on Veganism , eds. J Castricano, and R Simonsen, 15–39. The Palgrave Macmillan Animal Ethics Series.
• Kazez J. The taste question in animal ethics. Journal of Applied Philosophy. 2018; 35 (4):661–674. doi: 10.1111/japp.12278. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luke B. Justice, caring, and animal liberation. Between the Species. 1992; 8 (2):13. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lukes S. Marxism and morality. Oxford University Press; 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lukes S. Power: A radical view. 2. Palgrave Macmillan; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lumsden S. Veganism, normative change, and second nature. Environmental Philosophy. 2017; 14 (2):221–238. doi: 10.5840/envirophil201731045. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McIntyre A. What is wrong with weakness of will? Journal of Philosophy. 2006; 103 (6):284–311. doi: 10.5840/jphil2006103619. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mill JS. The subjection of women. The Floating Press; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller D. Ideology and the problem of false consciousness. Political Studies. 1972; 20 (4):432–447. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1972.tb01435.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mills, E. (2019). Factory Farming and Ethical Veganism. Acta Analytica , 34(4), 385–406. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12136-019-00389-x.
• Milburn J. Chewing over in vitro meat: Animal ethics, cannibalism and social progress. Res Publica. 2016; 22 (3):249–265. doi: 10.1007/s11158-016-9331-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moody-Adams MM. Moral progress and human agency. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. 2017; 20 (1):153–168. doi: 10.1007/s10677-016-9748-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nagel T. The possibility of altruism. Clarendon Press; 1970. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nibert D. Animal rights/human rights: Entanglements of oppression and liberation. Rowman and Littlefield; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nibert D. Animal oppression and human violence: Domesecration, capitalism, and global conflict. Columbia University Press; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• O'Sullivan S. Animals and the politics of equity. In: Garner R, O'Sullivan R, editors. The political turn in animal ethics. Rowman & Littlefield International; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perlo K. Marxism and the underdog. Society and Animals. 2002; 10 (3):303–318. doi: 10.1163/156853002320770092. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Piazza J, et al. Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite. 2015; 91 :114–128. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2015.04.011. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Polsby NW. Community power and political theory. Yale University Press; 1963. [ Google Scholar ]
• Popper K. The open society and its enemies. Routledge; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rawls, J. (2008). Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy . Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/leicester/detail.action?docID=3300540 .
• Regan T. The case for animal rights. University of California Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reid A. Veganism and the analytic question. Between the Species. 2017; 20 (1):38–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rorty AO. the social and political sources of akrasia. Ethics. 1997; 107 (4):644–657. doi: 10.1086/233763. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosen M. On voluntary servitude: False consciousness and the theory of ideology. Polity Press; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosi A, et al. Environmental impact of omnivorous, ovo-lacto- vegetarian, and vegan diet. Scientific Reports. 2017; 7 (1):6105. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-06466-8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rowlands M. Animal rights: All that matters. Hodder & Stoughton Ltd; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Runciman WG. False consciousness. Philosophy. 1969; 44 (170):303–313. doi: 10.1017/S0031819100009438. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sabaté J, Soret S. Sustainability of plant-based diets: Back to the future. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2014; 100 (1):476S–482S. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.113.071522. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmitz F. animal ethics and human institutions: Integrating animals into political theory. In: Garner R, O'Sullivan R, editors. The political turn in animal ethics. Rowman & Littlefield International; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer P. Marx: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer P. Utilitarianism and vegetarianism. Philosophy and Public Affairs. 1980; 9 (4):325–337. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer P. Animal liberation. The Bodley Head; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Singer P. Why vegan? Penguin; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stephens WO. Five arguments for vegetarianism. Philosophy in the Contemporary World. 1994; 1 (4):25–39. doi: 10.5840/pcw19941424. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tam A. Why moral reasoning Is insufficient for moral progress. Journal of Political Philosophy. 2019 doi: 10.1111/jopp.12187. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• The Telegraph (2019). BBC accused of being partial on poultry with Christmas advert featuring vegan turkeys. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/08/bbc-accused-partial-poultry-christmas-advert-featuring-vegan Accessed 02/02/2021
• Tuso PJ, et al. Nutritional update for physicians: Plant-based diets. The Permanente Journal. 2013; 17 (2):61–66. doi: 10.7812/tpp/12-085. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Twine R. Vegan killjoys at the table—Contesting happiness and negotiating relationships with food practices. Societies. 2014; 4 (4):623–639. doi: 10.3390/soc4040623. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wrenn, C. (2019). Why I’m Giving Beyoncé’s Vegan Campaign a Chance. http://www.coreyleewrenn.com/why-im-giving-beyonces-vegan-campaign-a-chance . Accessed 21/07/2019.

Veganism - Essay Samples And Topic Ideas For Free

Veganism is a lifestyle and dietary choice that excludes all animal products and attempts to limit the exploitation of animals as much as possible. Essays could discuss the ethical, environmental, and health aspects of veganism, challenges faced by vegans, and the societal reaction to veganism. The impact of veganism on the food industry could also be explored. We’ve gathered an extensive assortment of free essay samples on the topic of Veganism you can find at PapersOwl Website. You can use our samples for inspiration to write your own essay, research paper, or just to explore a new topic for yourself.

Pros and Cons of Veganism

Veganism is a controversial topic among many people that often results in heated debates. Those who follow the vegan lifestyle, or at least advocate for it, argue that it is a clean and healthy way to live, a way that has positive effect on both a person's physical health and their impact on the environment. On the other hand, there are people who counter that veganism is a radical and impractical lifestyle that is almost impossible to maintain in today's […]

Positive Effect of Veganism on Environment

What is veganism, and why should people be for being vegan in the first place? Veganism is a specialized diet that ignores all animal products and is targeted around plant-based foods. The vegan and omnivorous diets both differ from one another on an ethical stand point, when referring to our health, the environment, as well as onto the animals themselves. If those things aren’t enough to change societies perspective. There are a couple of different opposing arguments that are going […]

Why we shouldn’t all be Vegan

A persuasive piece intended to present the findings and belief on how veganism is not the only way to stay healthy. This paper would be published in the New York Times health and fitness section and will be directed to those who believe that the only way to save the world, and your health is to be vegan. The New York Times has a wide audience as the range of ages are from millennial (ages 18-29) to generation X (ages […]

We will write an essay sample crafted to your needs.

A Look into Veganism and Plant Based Diets

In recent years the trend of converting to a vegan or plant based diet has been on the rise. As a result there has been rising debate among vegans and those who Maintain a western diet if veganism is a safe and healthy way to go about maintaining your health. It is to my understanding that converting to a vegan or plant based diet is completely possible to thrive on and encouraged. a vegan diet although completely devoid of animal […]

A Better Understanding of Veganism

Intro: Many people believe that humans are naturally supposed eat meat and dairy and that there is a humane way to produce meat and dairy products, when in reality, that is not the case. That idea stems from childhood. Diet is a learned behavior just as religion and culture is. Usually, a child may grow up in an omnivore household, eating the average diet of fruits, veggies, meat, dairy, and grains. In a vegetarian household, a child may be taught […]

Going Vegan for the Animals

For as long as I can remember, I always loved animals but I never asked myself as an animal lover if it was okay to eat other animals but now that I look back,I feel like a hypocrite, loving one animal and eating another. And I always ask myself why I didn’t think of it earlier but the reason I didn’t was because the people around me ate meat like it was okay and so it was normal for me […]

Why Veganism is not a Healthier Lifestyle

Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation, of and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or other purposes. Following a plant-based diet can have a lot of benefits for our body and our planet, but often happens that following a very strict vegan diet can lead to inadequate protein consumption. According to a study made by (Larson, Johansson 2002) in the Umea University in Sweden, about […]

The Benefits of Veganism on Animal Rights

Millennials are central drivers of this worldwide shift away from consuming animal products. But the plant-based movement is bigger than any one generation. Over recent years, veganism has turned from a fad into a healthy trend. While many people may think that the dietary limitations of a vegan lifestyle may not have many benefits, it does have a particular benefit in aiding animal rights. As animal activists seek to obtain a means to further their protest for animal rights, veganism […]

Might a Vegan Diet be Healthy, or Even Healthier?

While many people enjoy their steaks and burgers, a growing population of the world is turning to a plant based diet. Being vegan, otherwise known as people who have cut all animal products out of their diets, is one of the fastest growing trends in the world. Over 6% of the world is vegan, with almost 4% of them not using any animal products. With this growing trend, could any of it be bad? There are many things to look […]

Veganism and its Effects

The local coffee shop is always occupied with that one person who never fails to remind the baristas and surrounding customers that their extra soy non-dairy milk espresso with added hazelnut syrup is better for the environment than the usual black coffee with a splash of milk purely because it does not contain an animal byproduct. With the current situation of global warming, and the never-ending increase of Earth’s population, more and more people are turning to veganism. Trying to […]

Veganism in Modern World

The topic about veganism has received recognition not because of the adoption of its culture, but due to the controversies surrounding it. Veganism is the practice of people avoiding animal products and their byproducts. Instead, this group of people concentrates on healthier food, such as legumes, vegetables, fruits, and grains to name a few. Traditionally, people have relied on animal products such as meat and milk due to the belief that they enhance growing and developing strong bones. However, people […]

Is Veganism Detrimental to One’s Health

There are many reasons why people are inclined to practicing a vegan diet including, health conditions, ethical values, and to help the environment. Veganism has been said to reverse many conditions such as high blood pressure, heart disease, and even aging ("Animal products | Health Topics | NutritionFacts.org," n.d.). Moral value also plays a big part in the movement to become vegan as many animals are slaughtered and abused due to high demand. Because of this, approximately 1.6 million Americans […]

Veganism Might Save Us: from One Meat Lover to Another

Does the word "vegan" ring a bell? Yes, exactly. That's the face. Eyes glare, mouths twist, sometimes laughter erupts— and not the good kind. We are all quick to shut down our hearing system when somebody happens to mention they are vegan; we put them on mute and kindly nod our heads just enough to be polite. Well, maybe we shouldn't. Veganism is not only a much healthier lifestyle for us, not to mention the great impact it has on […]

Is Veganism Beneficial or Detrimental to Society?

Veganism, a "strict vegetarian diet," is a very popular, yet controversial lifestyle to follow today. According to Alina Petre, a registered dietitian, the online search for the term vegan has risen by more than 250%. The word vegan has become more and more popular amongst society and many have gained more knowledge on the lifestyle itself. When researching the term veganism, according to The Vegan Society the word veganism can be defined as: A philosophy and way of living which […]

Veganism: do the Anecdotes Hold Answers?

Veganism, seen as an extreme form of vegetarianism, is a lifestyle based on complete flesh-avoidance that can be traced back to ancient Indian and eastern Mediterranean societies (Suddath, 2008). The terms was first coined in November 1944 by British woodworker named Donald Watson, announcing that because vegetarians ate dairy and eggs, he was going to create a new term called "vegan," to describe people who did not. Watson's cause was fueled by the emergence of tuberculosis, which had been found […]

Veganism Unfolded: Navigating the Nuances of Vegan Vs Vegetarian Diet

In recent times, there has been a growing international discourse regarding dietary preferences, with vegan and vegetarian diets gaining prominence. Both have garnered attention not only as dietary preferences but also as ways of life that promote animal welfare and environmental sustainability and healthier livelihoods. The purpose of this essay is to analyze the distinctions between vegan and vegetarian diets, focusing on their environmental and health implications, as well as the ethical considerations that frequently influence these decisions. The fundamental […]

Additional Example Essays

• The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food
• David Zinczenko: “Don't Blame the Eater”
• GMO Disadvantages Essay
• Fast Food Should Be Banned in Schools: Prioritizing Health and Dietary Habits
• Colonism in Things Fall Apart
• The short story "The Cask of Amontillado"
• Homeschooling vs Traditional Schooling
• Beowulf and Grendel Comparison
• Gender Inequality in Education
• Executive Summary Coca-Cola
• About My Goals In A Study A Nurse Practitioner
• The Importance of Illusion and Fantasy in A Street Car Named Desire

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

Your diet is one of the first places to start if you’re looking to manage your health and weight. Focusing on whole foods from plant sources can reduce body weight, blood pressure and risk of heart disease, cancer and diabetes — and it can make your environmental impact more sustainable.

But how do we embrace plants in our diets if we’re so accustomed to including meat and dairy as primary nutrition sources?

We spoke with Dr. Reshma Shah, a physician, plant-based eating advocate, co-author of “Nourish: The Definitive Plant-Based Nutrition Guide for Families” and Stanford Healthy Living instructor, about simple ways to incorporate more plants into your diet and the benefits this can provide for both you and the planet.  

Focus on whole, minimally processed foods.

People use many different terms to describe a plant-based diet, including vegetarian, lacto-ovo vegetarian, pescatarian, and flexitarian to name a few. The most restrictive is veganism, which  excludes all animal products, including meat, eggs and dairy. 

While there are health benefits to adopting a vegan diet, highly processed foods with little to no nutritional value, like Oreos or French fries, could still be a legitimate part of a vegan diet.

In contrast, a whole-foods, plant-based (WFPB) diet: 

• Emphasizes whole, minimally processed foods
• Limits or avoids animal products
• Focuses on plant nutrients from vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, seeds and nuts 
• Limits refined foods like added sugar, white flour and processed oils 

Recommendations from organizations including the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, World Health Organization, American Diabetes Association and American Cancer Society tout the benefits of plant-based whole foods and caution against high amounts of red and processed meats, saturated fats, highly refined foods and added sugar. 

The vast majority of what nutritional experts are saying reflects the mantra made famous by Michael Pollen in his book “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” — eat food, mostly plants, not too much . 

Eating a plant-based diet helps the environment.

According to a report by the U.S. Food and Agriculture Organization, “The meat industry has a marked impact on a general global scale on water, soils, extinction of plants and animals, and consumption of natural resources, and it has a strong impact on global warming.” 

The meat and dairy industries alone use one third of the Earth’s fresh water , with a single quarter-pound hamburger patty requiring 460 gallons of water — the equivalent of almost 30 showers — to produce.

Reducing your meat and dairy consumption, even by a little, can have big impacts. If everyone in the U.S. ate no meat or cheese just one day a week, it would have the same environmental impact as taking 7.6 million cars off the road.

Plant-based diets prevent animal cruelty. 

Ninety-four percent of Americans agree that animals raised for food deserve to be free from abuse and cruelty , yet 99% of those animals are raised in factory farms, many suffering unspeakable conditions . 

If you would like to lessen your meat and dairy consumption due to animal welfare concerns but aren’t ready to eliminate all animal products from your diet, then you can start by taking small steps, like going meatless one day a week or switching to soy, almond or oat milk. Shah admits that initially she was not ready to give up animal products entirely. 

“I think it is a process and recommend that people go at the pace that feels comfortable for them.” 

Plant-based diets include all nutrients — even protein.

According to the American Dietetic Association, “appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, and for athletes.”

Shah says that there are a few key nutrients that strict vegans and vegetarians should keep in mind, including B12, iron, calcium, iodine, omega-3 fatty acids and vitamin D, but all of these can be obtained through plant-based foods, including fortified plant-based milks, fresh fruits and vegetables or supplemental vitamins, if needed. 

“I think the number one concern for people is that they won’t be able to get enough protein eating a plant-based diet. I also think that people widely overestimate the amount of protein they need.”

All plant foods contain the nine essential amino acids required to make up the proteins you need, and many vegetarian foods like soy, beans, nuts, seeds and non-dairy milk products have comparable amounts of protein to animal foods. 

“Ninety-seven percent of Americans meet their daily protein requirements, but only 4% of Americans meet their daily fiber requirements . I’ve never treated a patient for protein deficiency. If you eat a wide variety of foods and eat enough calories, protein should not be a concern.”

Savor the flavor of plant-based foods. 

Adopting a plant-based diet does not mean subsisting on boring, tasteless food. Shah enjoys incorporating flavorful, varied dishes from around the world, including Ethiopia, Thailand and her native India. 

To get started on your plant-forward journey:

• Start small: Start with adding a “Meatless Monday” to your meal plan and investigate one simple and delicious recipe to try each week. Once you have identified a few favorites, you can add them to your rotation and maybe go meatless one or two days a week. You can learn a few easy techniques to incorporate in many dishes, like roasting vegetables or blending quick and easy soups. 
• Change your plate proportions: Instead of giving up your meat-based protein completely, try to reduce the space it takes on your plate. Instead of a quarter-pound sirloin steak or a full serving of roasted chicken, try a vegetable-heavy stir-fry with a few slices of beef or a salad with chicken. Once your palate and mindset have adjusted to the smaller quantity of meat, try replacing it occasionally with plant-based proteins like tofu, seitan or beans.  
• Be prepared when dining out: If possible, try to examine the restaurant menu ahead of your meal, so you’ll arrive with a plan of what you can eat. Ask for the vegan options and don’t be afraid to request substitutions or omissions for your dish. Fortunately, with more people choosing a vegetarian lifestyle, many restaurants now provide tasty, meat-free options to their customers. 
• Share a dish: Bring a dish to share at a party or potluck; this will lessen your worries about food options. Let your host know ahead of time that you are planning on bringing a dish or, if that is not possible, be upfront and find out if any modifications can be made to accommodate your preferences. Often a simple solution can be found with a little advanced planning.
• Accommodate family members: It can be tricky when one family member is ready to commit to a new diet and lifestyle while others are not. Shah recommends approaching this situation compassionately and allowing for flexibility, if possible. Hopefully your family will be willing to support you even if they are not ready to make the same commitments. Communication is key, and Shah says that the conversation is over the minute someone feels judged, so try to look for points of compromise to reach an amicable solution. 
• Feeling satisfied: A diet of nothing but lettuce and vegetables will leave you feeling hungry and unfulfilled. Be sure to bulk up your meals with filling, fiber-rich whole grains, plant-based proteins and healthy fats. Plant-based meat substitutes like Beyond Beef, seitan and veggie burgers can also be a satisfying choice when you are craving your favorite meat-based comfort food.

Remember that small, consistent changes can add up to big benefits for your health and the planet. Treat yourself and others with compassion as you embrace this new lifestyle, and take time to enjoy the different flavors and textures you discover in your journey.

“It is a really delicious, healthful, sustainable and compassionate way of eating. It doesn’t have to be perfect. Just start simply, do what feels comfortable for you and your family, and don’t forget to celebrate the joy of eating and connection around food.” 

Dr. Reshma Shah will be teaching a plant-based online cooking class with Healthy Living this summer on Tuesday, July 13, from 4:00 – 5:30 p.m.

• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6518108/
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212371713000024 
•  https://www.portland.gov/water/water-efficiency-programs/save-water-home 
•   https://water.usgs.gov/edu/activity-watercontent.php  
• https://www.ewg.org/meateatersguide/a-meat-eaters-guide-to-climate-change-health-what-you-eat-matters/reducing-your-footprint/)  
• https://www.aspca.org/about-us/press-releases/aspca-research-shows-americans-overwhelmingly-support-investigations-expose 
•  https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/us-factory-farming-estimates
•  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19562864/ 
•   https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/8040053 0/pdf/0102/usualintaketables2001-02.pdf

BEING VEGAN: A personal essay about veganism

I wear a necklace that spells out the word vegan. People peer at it and ask me, “Are you vegan?” It seems like an odd question, but people find vegans odd. When I respond that I indeed am a vegan, the comeback reply I dread most is when the person lists the animal products they eat, and how they couldn’t live without chicken or cheese.

In the cut and thrust of talk about food, I’ll then respond that the chicken is the body of an animal who wanted to live. That cheese is made from milk, a nutritious sustenance meant for a mother to give her newborn calf. If the baby cow was male, he was slaughtered for veal.

The slaughtering of baby animals is a good way to end what could escalate into an uncomfortable conversation neither of us really wanted to have.

Few of us are born vegan, and those who choose to become vegan usually do so following a personal epiphany, perhaps in the wake of a health crisis, or after meeting and befriending a farm animal whom one might formerly have considered food. That was my route. I was 40 before I understood that I was living a lie, claiming to love animals on the one hand, and eating them on the other. Today, veganism brings me peace of mind and a nice circle of friends.

I find it regrettable that vegans are so widely disliked in the mainstream media, but I’m not surprised. Our insistence that animals are neither objects nor ingredients is a perspective that people find challenging and even subversive. Our choice not to eat or wear animals challenges people to think about their own relationship to animals.  Most people love animals. Most people don’t want to think about animals being gruesomely treated and slaughtered. Faced with a vegan, the non-vegan has to think about that. Or else thrust such thinking into the depths of the psyche, and quick.

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, on a weight-loss campaign to shed some of his 300 pounds, hurriedly dismissed two PETA-sponsored vegans who brought him a basket of vegan treats during one of his weekly weigh-ins. He wouldn’t even look them in the face. He abruptly dismissed a question from a reporter about veganism and retreated into his office.  He skipped a subsequent weigh-in.

His Honour could have relaxed a little. Veganism is a way of life that is not forced on anyone. We don’t come to your house with flyers or make robo-calls. We’re not funded by some giant corporation. We’re people who care deeply about animals, and about the people who have nothing to eat because so much of the corn and grain grown in North America goes to feed livestock, not hungry children.

Vegans mean it when they say they love all animals. A recent vegan advertising campaign showed a dog or cat facing a pig or chick, and underneath was the caption: “Why love one but eat the other?”

The questions we raise bother people. One commenter on a social media forum wrote:

“Those who don’t eat meat, I can empathize with you but you also need to get off your soapboxes.”

I relish the irony of being told to get off my soapbox from someone who is firmly planted on theirs. Non-vegans have been doing more than their fair share of “preaching” for centuries. In our day, McDonalds and Burger King push their beliefs and products on me dozens of times a day through TV and newspaper ads, and coupon flyers stuffed into my mailbox.

The Canadian government forces me to subsidize the meat and dairy industries through taxation. Non-vegans have preached and promoted their point of view on such a large scale that they have successfully hidden the cruelty of the meat and dairy industries from public view.

When I’m responding to an item in the newspaper about the subject of veganism, someone in the next comment box will inevitably ask me why I bother with animals when there is so much human suffering in the world. I love that question because it allows me to explain that I see animal liberation and human liberation as being intertwined.

The great physicist Albert Einstein famously said: “Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.” He also held the view that not eating animals would have a physical effect on the human temperament that would benefit the lot of humankind.

The vegans I know care about injustice, enslavement, and oppression, no matter what the race, ethnicity, or species of the victim. When someone argues with me that human problems take precedence, I have to turn the argument on its head and ask not only what that person is personally doing to alleviate the suffering of human beings, but why they feel the heartless exploitation of other animals should continue even so. Humans are hurting, so kindness to animals must therefore be abandoned?

The most ridiculous argument that I hear is that plants have feelings too. To which I quote the answer provided by vegan food writer Colleen Patrick-Goudreau, who asks, in an episode of her podcast devoted to what she calls excuse-itarians—“ Really? Really?”

Animals are sentient and plants are not. Sentient beings have minds; they have preferences and show a desire to live by running away from those who would harm them, or by crying out in pain. Plants respond to sunlight and other stimuli, and apparently they like it when Prince Charles talks to them, but they are not sentient; they don’t have a mind, they don’t think about or fear death, they aren’t aware and conscious.

Finally, there’s the argument of last resort: that eating flesh is a personal choice. If it were my personal choice to kick and beat you, would you say to me “that’s your personal choice”? Being slaughtered for food is not the personal choice of the billions of animals that just want to live their portion of time on Earth.

Being vegan has changed not only what I eat and wear, but how I cope with the anger, outrage, dismissal and verbal abuse of others.

I’m learning, as I go, to let it all go. I speak out where I feel my words will do the most good, and if all else fails, I’ll simply smile and say, “Don’t hate me because I’m vegan.”

[su_panel background=”#f2f2f2″ color=”#000000″ border=”0px none #ffffff” shadow=”0px 0px 0px #ffffff”]Bonnie Shulman is a writer and editor working in Toronto. She earned her Master of Arts degree at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta. You can follow her on Twitter at @veganbonnie .

image:  rian_bean (Creative Commons BY-NC-SA)

The biggest issue for me in the whole politics of eating is the divide that’s created among people solely based on their choice of diet. To be vegan or non-vegan shouldn’t matter. Like any labels I wish they didn’t even exist. But of all the unnecessary labels, to have to use the word vegan is pretty sad. What one chooses to eat is a personal choice that doesn’t hurt anyone else, yet some people blow it up into such a big issue.

I wish people didn’t get so annoyed at vegans because it just contributes even more discord to this world. The only upside I see is that when people single out vegans and get defensive it at least causes them to think and talk about veganism.

Hi Breathe:

I agree that discord between people isn’t pleasant. Yet that is the end result of being an advocate for animals. I want to put a stop to the wholesale torture of animals on factory farms. To do that, I have to take a stand. I have to stand up and declare myself for animals. I have to campaign about the abuse, so that more people know what goes on behind those walls where pigs and chickens never see the light of day their entire lives. Speaking up for animals makes some people uneasy, and they get angry. On the other hand, some people, meat eaters included!, appreciate the stance I take. I say meat eaters too because even good people who eat meat don’t want animals to suffer as they do in the current conditions on factory farms. Watch any video by Mercy For Animals and you’ll see what I mean. It’s horrifying.

Thanks for your response. Take care.

First, I appreciate that you’re willing to stand up for animals. It takes courage and it’s a thankless job, which is why so few do it.

As I mentioned, I see the benefit to standing up for animals and I don’t discourage that. What I was getting at is how can we advocate while maintaining peace? How can we raise our communication to a higher level?

Saying the V-word pisses people off. It always has… maybe always will because people just don’t like to think that they’re in the wrong. Defensiveness is one of the ego’s most potent tricks. It has the power to disprove even the most solid logic. And so, enemies are built. The point is not even to build “allies” because that too is separation. We’re all humans doing the best we can with the resources we have at work. So the question is how do we advocate for animals by overcoming this ego battle? For me, that just means loving them, being in nature, connecting to them and sharing my love for them. Now I don’t believe that this is making a world of difference or anything. The whole issue of animal rights is no easy situation to deal with and I’d just like to think of different ways of doing things.

Breathe, you ask the million dollar question. And you hit the nail on the head: advocacy can lead to icky feelings between people! I once passed by a demonstration against wind farms, and I asked someone with a picket sign why she was against wind farms, and she kind of spat in my face with disgust at my question. Naturally, I am ALL FOR windfarms now (haha – I actually was before the incident).

May I recommend a great book? It’s my advocacy bible and I have a review on Amazon.com about it. I think it really addresses what you talk about – we have to change the world for animals without alienating people. I am not perfect, I admit, but I hand out vegan food at work and leave easy vegan recipes in the servery. That helps! Food is good! I’ve even got some people to try out Meatless Mondays, without even asking them to do so. They just thought it was cool to give vegan food a try. They love it now.

Here’s the book:

The Animal Activist’s Handbook: Maximizing Our Positive Impact in Today’s World by Matt Ball and Bruce Friedrich. These are the top advocates that I know of, and I respect them so much. They are brilliant people who understand that we must not lose touch with people in our animal advocacy. Again, they are the masters. I bow to their wisdom!

Thanks for writing!

Breathe, When you are in a non vegan diet what one chooses to it hurt innocent animals. It took me a while to connect the dots. I was not always a vegan, but becoming a vegan was a moment of brilliance that it is one of the best things that has ever happen to me. I can not keep exploiting animals.

I don’t hate anyone because they are vegan. But the vegans hate me because I insist that eating meat is natural for humans. Being vegan is a choice. Eating meat is a choice.I respect yours but do you respect mine? Your article is again full of accusations. Up to today I never got an answer to the questions: How does a vegan think about a Lion eating a Zebra? How does a vegan think about a cat eating a mouse or a bird? And why do they think different about a human eating a cow or a chicken? Humans are omnivores since millions of years. And please spare me the – how did you cal it “The most ridiculous argument ” that our bodies, our teeth etc are not made for meat. We eat it since millions of years for heavens sake! When do people accept that eating meat is our natural food? Yes we can chose to not eat meat. Yes I do accept that. But it is a choice! And if you want to tell me that I hurt animals by killing them then you have to accuse a Lion as well. And by the way, dairy is not our natural food. I agree with you on this. Not because we steal it from the mothers but because it is not natural and that’s why so many people are dairy intolerant. It is natural to be weaned off dairy products. But we do not have a great number of people who are meat intolerant. Because it is part of our natural diet.

Dear Peter:

When a lion eats a zebra I am distressed at the images of the kill, but I let it go because that is the way of the lion world. They cannot grow plants and raise crops. I am not angry at the lion for having its dinner. I find it pretty ridiculous that you would even think that. Also, people are not lions, so why do you even bring that up as an argument?

What do I think about a cat eating a mouse or bird? if it is a domestic cat I’m infuriated, because there so many farm animals are being slaughtered already, the by-products of which go into animal food readily available at stores. The decrease in the number of North American songbirds has been attributed largely to household cats.

If meat is a natural part of our diet, why do so many people thrive the minute they give it up? Also, why are so many of our hospitals stuffed to the gills with people requiring heart surgery? Only a minor percentage were born with heart defects. Among the rest, many gorged on such meat products as steaks, bacon, sausages and chicken fingers, as well as high-fat dairy, until their bodies rebelled.

I see my article has made you very angry. If this doesn’t prove my point then I don’t know what does. Thank you for writing, PeterNZ.

Question for you – would you be able to go right now, pounce on a cow, pig, etc.’s back, chomp through their hide/skin with your teeth to their muscle and eat it without cooking it? If your answer is NO (which it should be if you are human), well then there is your answer. Next, just because something has been done for millions of years, does not mean that it is right. Humans have done MANY things for millions of years that have been considered atrocities (sadistic Roman gladiator games, slavery, etc.). Were those things okay? These are just excuses. Believe me, I understand, as I made excuses my whole life…Done with that!

Bella I am a completely normal human being and i would be more than happy to go to my local supermarket and eat food that they provide, as this is what is normal for our culture. let me just quote History.com, one of the most reliable sources possible “In a paper published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, an international team announces the discovery of burned plants and bones from 1 million years ago. Their findings suggest that Homo erectus?not Homo sapiens or Neanderthals?became the first hominin to master flames, possibly in order to cook their food.” as my ancestors have done I would happily cook the meat so that the food becomes safe for my consumption, I agree with you in the concept that no human would go and pounce on a wild animal and sink their teeth into them as this is not what a normal human would do. I personally if it was down to survival would light a fire and cook the meat so that I could enjoy the delicacy that has been provided to me by nature. just this weekend i have enjoyed one of my favourite meals that does meat in it. i would suggest some of the recipes from this site as i have found them the best http://www.foodnetwork.ca/everyday-cooking/photos/most-popular-beef-recipes/

In your responses try to not be so aggressive as your way of life is far from the main stream and preferred way of living 🙂

also note to the author of this post, don’t try and act like your not trying to bring attention to your self, your twitter name is legitimately “veganbonnie”.

We vegans don?t hate u guys but we just wish non vegans to understand how the animals have to suffer and have to end their precious life just for the food u eat. and don?t compare humans with loins we humans can think rationally and we have can grow crops .. we have many options but the lions don?t have any options.. we respect your choice to eat meat but animals do not exist for humans and our uses. Animals also have moral rights to live in this world as much as human have.

Human beings have a variety of options when it comes to getting protein into their bodies – rice paired with lentils, chickpeas or any kind of bean forms a perfect protein. There is also tofu, and a lot of soy products are viable alternatives for those who are not allergic to soy. We cannot educate a wild animal such as a lion, to grow, harvest and ferment soybeans. Or chickpeas. This argument is silly. Lions hunt based on instinct. Human beings are more advanced (arguably) and therefore, we can use our more advanced brains to make food choices that do not cause harm to other living things. We have many instincts that we can overcome, and that we have overcome in order to be able to live in “civilized” societies.

Eating the flesh of a living thing is a personal choice that kills an innocent creature. There is nothing inherently wrong with your choice. But don’t get defensive when someone points out this fact.

Fact: You choose to place your tastebuds and your personal enjoyment over the life of another living creature, because you view yourself as more advanced and therefore entitled to consume flesh.

You do not need to feel guilty about your choice. Just be honest about it, and accept the moral consequences. That’s all. Meat may have been eaten by humans since the dawn of time… but historical precedent is not, in my mind, a valid excuse by which to continue justifying a behaviour.

In a similar vein, women have been treated as property since the dawn of time as well. Men are more powerful and indeed women did not always hold legal personhood status throughout history. So we should continue in the same vein, no? But this argument doesn’t fly today. Why? Because we know better, so we can act better. The same goes for the meat argument.

Your dietary implications may not be clean and pretty, but if you’re going to stand firm in your position, stick to it 100%. Do not waver, and do not speak about naturally being an omnivore. Just because you CAN eat it, enjoy it and thrive on it, doesn’t mean you SHOULD continue to do so. If we are enlightened beings, as we all like to claim to be, we should be held to a higher moral standard. If we do not want to hold ourselves up to that standard, that is fine.

P.S. Before you begin to assume things about me I will tell you that no, I am not a vegan. Why? Because I love eating fish, and cheese on occasion. But I don’t apologize for it. I know I can live without it, and I know that I am making a personal, selfish choice in the face of cruelty and suffering.

Laura, your reply is so beautifully heartfelt, and I read it with great interest. I love your honesty. Part of my animal advocacy is just asking people to be honest with themselves about the choices they make.

I also think you make a critically important statement that really hits the nail on the head. I’ll repeat it here:

Just because you CAN eat it, enjoy it and thrive on it, doesn’t mean you SHOULD continue to do so.

Thank you for contributing such wise words to the conversation, and all the best.

http://www.amif.org/blog/eating-meat-is-ethical/

This is so inspiring! I am a loyal vegetarian and have been for almost 9 years, I really feel deeply moved by it! I’ve thought about becoming Vegan but on a strict competitive national training programme it could be difficult, but you’ve definitely persuaded me to give it a go! Thank you for your thoughtful insight!

I just wanted to voice my support and appreciation for this article. With your stance and mine, putting the word “vegan” out in the world is going to make people angry. Anything different makes people angry. But if that anger ever leads to them making sure they understand the implications of their actions, it is worth it. It is worth it if they think.

I have had a close friend of mine tell me that he honestly believes in mind over matter. He also said he couldn’t ever stop eating meat. That self-limitation is stopping the human race from doing great things. WE must think through our actions, because we are the only species who can. Do what is right, because we are able.

Can people really be okay with eating a being that loved its mother? I always hypothesize a world were people could speak to animals and I ask the meat eater “Tell that animal to its face that it was born for the purpose of dying and feeding you, only for a single day, before you eat its children.”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Student Opinion

What Do You Think About Vegetarianism?

By Shannon Doyne

• Sept. 17, 2018

Are there vegetarians or vegans in your life? Are you a vegetarian or vegan?

What challenges have you noticed vegetarians and vegans sometimes face? What about the meat eaters around them — do they ever face any challenges as well?

In “ When Your Child Believes Meat Is Murder ,” Julie Halpert writes:

According to a 2014 Harris Poll, there are about two million vegetarians — defined as someone who never consumes meat, fish, seafood or poultry — ages 8 to 18 in the United States, representing 4 percent of that age group. That exceeds the 3.3 percent of adults surveyed who declare themselves vegetarian. Many children at very young ages are deciding to become vegetarians on their own, driven primarily by ethical concerns and the toll that meat production takes on the environment. … Inevitable tensions can arise when a child feels that eating meat constitutes murder and can’t tolerate other family members doing so. Rachel Gunther’s son, Elias, decided to become a vegetarian at the age of 4, repulsed by the idea that animals were being killed for food. He was deeply troubled that his younger brother, Theo, continued to eat meat. “It was a difficult parenting moment,” said Ms. Gunther, who lives in Cambridge, Mass., and is associate director for Youth on Board, which supports young people organizing for change in their communities and in their own lives. She used the conflict as an opportunity to teach empathy. She would say, “Elias, you need to understand how your actions affect Theo and vice versa.” Elias, now 12, became a vegan two years ago, while his younger brother ultimately gave up his beloved pepperoni pizza and made the choice to become a vegetarian, as did the rest of the family. They were the subject of a short documentary, “Elias’s Stand,” which can be seen on Facebook.

Students, read the entire article, then tell us:

— Do you identify with anything in the article? If so, what?

— Are there any foods that you either choose not to eat or cannot eat?

— What is your advice for people who avoid certain foods when eating in places like school cafeterias, friends’ houses and the like?

— What do you think it is like to be a parent of children who adhere to different diets?

— At your home, are there food items that some people eat while others do not? If so, how does this affect meal preparations?

— Do you think vegetarianism or veganism is a worthwhile diet and pursuit for some? Explain.

— To what degree does your school cafeteria address the needs of students who have dietary restrictions?

Students 13 and older are invited to comment. All comments are moderated by the Learning Network staff, but please keep in mind that once your comment is accepted, it will be made public.

• September 30 Opinion | I’m pissed off about the new Sixers arena — and so are most Philadelphians
• September 30 Opinion | I hope Harris deviates from her predecessors’ immigration policies
• September 29 Couple charged after throwing smoke bombs at Knowles protest pleads guilty
• September 29 The Hub helps students, Oakland residents get vaccinated for the upcoming winter
• September 29 Pitt volleyball on another level
• September 29 Pitt men’s and women’s soccer weekend recap
• September 29 More than an SID: Joe Lassi's role in shaping Pitt lacrosse
• September 29 Lyke firing remains unclear as Pitt Athletics searches for new AD, Lyke steps into new CEO role
• September 29 Photos: Bob Casey campaigns in Pittsburgh
• September 29 Pitt volleyball dominates Georgia Tech in sweep

The Pitt News

Opinion | Veganism isn’t necessarily the most ethical or sustainable option

Carolyn Pallof | Senior Staff Photographer

The vegan diet is on the rise in recent years.

By Paige Lawler , Assistant Opinions Editor September 22, 2020

The vegan diet has been on the rise in recent years, with many people ceasing consumption of animal products in order to live what is usually seen as a very ethical and sustainable diet.

But being vegan isn’t necessarily more ethical or more sustainable than eating a diet that includes meat and other animal products. In fact, depending on people’s consumption choices, being vegan can be less ethical and less sustainable than a “normal” diet.

One of the main reasons people choose to adopt a vegan diet is that it is “more ethical” to avoid consuming animal products — whether these products are meats, dairy products or makeup and soaps that are produced using animal products or testing. While I agree that many of these processes are not ethical, it doesn’t make sense to avoid eating meat in protest of the unethical treatment of animals when most fruits and vegetables aren’t produced ethically.

Many farms that grow produce en masse and ship their product cross-country to grocery stores rely on the work of underpaid farm workers. Especially amid the COVID-19 pandemic, these workers deal with horrible conditions and receive nowhere near enough compensation — there are only five states in the United States where farm workers are guaranteed to make minimum wage.

Additionally, through the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, farm workers have continued working in the fields because of their status as essential workers — despite the fact that many of these workers are undocumented and have limited or no options for health care or financial assistance should they contract coronavirus.

Most recently, workers in California have been subjected to unhealthy air due to wildfires, but they haven’t received the state mandated N95 masks to combat the poor air quality due to a pandemic-related shortage. The combination of these two puts farm workers at extreme risk of contracting the coronavirus or experiencing respiratory illness or damage from smoke inhalation.

It’s safe to say that none of these conditions are ethical. The mistreatment of and failure to provide protection for farm workers is, honestly, far less ethical than the meat industry, meaning that consumption of produce that comes from this industry invalidates any moral superiority one could gain from not consuming animal products. Frankly, it isn’t right to boycott animal products because the animals are “suffering” or “stressed” — or whatever the argument to boycott meat is — if you’re not also going to boycott the companies that exploit actual human employees.

Another reason people adopt vegan diets is that it’s supposedly a more sustainable option than eating meat. This is certainly true for some parts of the meat industry — namely the mass farming of cows to produce beef products — though it does not always hold true. The production of beef is admittedly an ecological disaster in and of itself. The industry causes significantly more environmental damage than other animal proteins due to the inefficiency of raising cattle — they use more water and land than other animals — as well as the massive amount of methane that cows produce. So, while it is certainly more sustainable to stop consuming red meat, the same isn’t quite true for other animal proteins — especially if someone plans to consume meat alternatives.

In terms of the amount of emissions produced, chicken is equivalent to factory factory-produced plant-based meat alternatives. And cell-based meat alternatives — synthesized from an animal cell in a lab — create five times as many emissions as chicken, meaning they are only slightly more sustainable than beef. Considering all of this, it seems more logical to simply purchase locally sourced, ethically raised chicken rather than a highly processed alternative — and buying locally cuts back on emissions produced from transporting food across the country, which is another front where the argument that veganism is “more sustainable” than other diets falls short.

Transportation of food only accounts for 6% of food industry emissions, which is admittedly not an enormous amount. But it is possibly one of the easiest sources of emissions to cut from your own consumption. All a person has to do to reduce this is start buying the majority of your produce and/or meat locally — i.e., from a farmers market rather than from a grocery store that imports its produce from a different state — or even a different country.

If someone truly wants to be vegan, that’s fine. I don’t care — anyone can eat whatever they want. But they cannot claim that they are vegan because it’s more ethically sound than eating meat, and they cannot claim that they are vegan to be more sustainable if all of their produce comes from a store that has imported it from California.

The better option — both in terms of ethics and sustainability — is to buy locally sourced produce and meat. Buying from a farmers market, for example, eliminates the emissions produced by shipping produce across the country, and it doesn’t send money to companies that treat their workers inhumanely.

Paige Lawler writes primarily about environmental policy and politics. Write to her at [email protected] .

• sustainability

Join our newsletter

Get Pitt and Oakland news in your inbox every weekday.

Privacy Preference Center

Consent management, advertising.

Created by our advertising software OpenX.

To provide The Pitt News with data for advertisers and internal analytics.

• IELTS Scores
• Life Skills Test
• Find a Test Centre
• Alternatives to IELTS
• All Lessons
• General Training
• IELTS Tests
• Academic Word List
• Topic Vocabulary
• Collocation
• Phrasal Verbs
• Writing eBooks
• Reading eBook
• All eBooks & Courses
• Sample Essays

Vegetarianism Essay

This is a model  vegetarianism essay .

As I always stress, you should  read the question very carefully  before you answer it to make sure you are writing about the right thing.

Take a look at the question:

Every one of us should become a vegetarian because eating meat can cause serious health problems.

To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Staying on topic

If you rush to start writing and don't analyse the question and brainstorm some ideas you may include the wrong information.

There are religious or moral arguments for not eating meat, but if you discuss those you will be going off topic .

This question is specifically about the health problems connected to eating meat.

So you must discuss in your answer what some of these problems are and if you think there are real health risks or not.

Knowing about the topic

And don't get worried that you do not know much about diet and health.

As part of your IELTS study it will help if you know the basics of most topics such as some health vocabulary in this case, but you are not expected to be an expert on nutrition.

Remember, you are being judged on your English ability and your ability to construct an argument in a coherent way, not to be an expert in the subject matter. So relax and work with

Organisation

In this vegetarianism essay, the candidate disagrees with the statement, and is thus arguing that everyone does not need to be a vegetarian.

The essay has been organised in the following way:

Body 1: Health issues connected with eating meat (i.e. arguments in support of being a vegetarian Body 2: Advantages of eating meat

Now take a look at the model answer.

Model Essay

You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.

Write about the following topic:

Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own experience or knowledge.

Write at least 250 words.

IELTS Vegetarianism Essay - Sample Answer

Vegetarianism is becoming more and more popular for many people, particularly because of the harm that some people believe meat can cause to the body. However, I strongly believe that it is not necessary for everybody to be a vegetarian.

Vegetarians believe that meat is unhealthy because of the diseases it has been connected with. There has been much research to suggest that red meat is particularly bad, for example, and that consumption should be limited to eating it just a few times a week to avoid such things as cancer. Meats can also be high in saturated fats so they have been linked to health problems such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

However, there are strong arguments for eating meat. The first reason is that as humans we are designed to eat meat, which suggests it is not unhealthy, and we have been eating meat for thousands of years. For example, cavemen made hunting implements so that they could kill animals and eat their meat. Secondly, meat is a rich source of protein which helps to build muscles and bones. Vegetarians often have to take supplements to get all the essential vitamins and minerals. Finally, it may be the case that too much meat is harmful, but we can easily limit the amount we have without having to cut it out of our diet completely.

To sum up, I do not agree that everyone should turn to a vegetarian diet. Although the overconsumption of meat could possibly be unhealthy, a balanced diet of meat and vegetables should result in a healthy body.

(264 words)

You should begin by intoducing the topi c. The introduction in this vegetarianism essay begins by mentioning vegetarians and the possible harm of eating meat .

It then goes on to the thesis statement , which makes it clear what the candidate's opinion is.

The first body paragraph has a topic sentence which makes it clear that the paragraph is going to address the possible health issues of eating meat.

Some reasons and examples are then given to support this.

The second body paragraph then has a topic sentence which makes it clear that the main idea is now about the arguments for eating meat .

The conclusion in this vegetarianism essay then repeats the opinion and gives the candidates final thoughts.

<<< Back

Next >>>

More Agree / Disagree Essays:

Free University Education Essay: Should it be paid for or free?

Free university education Model IELTS essay. Learn how to write high-scoring IELTS essays. The issue of free university education is an essay topic that comes up in the IELTS test. This essay therefore provides you with some of the key arguments about this topic.

Paying Taxes Essay: Should people keep all the money they earn?

Paying Taxes Essay: Read model essays to help you improve your IELTS Writing Score for Task 2. In this essay you have to decide whether you agree or disagree with the opinion that everyone should be able to keep their money rather than paying money to the government.

Human Cloning Essay: Should we be scared of cloning humans?

Human cloning essay - this is on the topic of cloning humans to use their body parts. You are asked if you agree with human cloning to use their body parts, and what reservations (concerns) you have.

Scientific Research Essay: Who should be responsible for its funding?

Scientific research essay model answer for Task 2 of the test. For this essay, you need to discuss whether the funding and controlling of scientific research should be the responsibility of the government or private organizations.

Sample IELTS Writing: Is spending on the Arts a waste of money?

Sample IELTS Writing: A common topic in IELTS is whether you think it is a good idea for government money to be spent on the arts. i.e. the visual arts, literary and the performing arts, or whether it should be spent elsewhere, usually on other public services.

Examinations Essay: Formal Examinations or Continual Assessment?

Examinations Essay: This IELTS model essay deals with the issue of whether it is better to have formal examinations to assess student’s performance or continual assessment during term time such as course work and projects.

Employing Older People Essay: Is the modern workplace suitable?

Employing Older People Essay. Examine model essays for IELTS Task 2 to improve your score. This essay tackles the issue of whether it it better for employers to hire younger staff rather than those who are older.

Return of Historical Objects and Artefacts Essay

This essay discusses the topic of returning historical objects and artefacts to their country of origin. It's an agree/disagree type IELTS question.

Ban Smoking in Public Places Essay: Should the government ban it?

Ban smoking in public places essay: The sample answer shows you how you can present the opposing argument first, that is not your opinion, and then present your opinion in the following paragraph.

IELTS Internet Essay: Is the internet damaging social interaction?

Internet Essay for IELTS on the topic of the Internet and social interaction. Included is a model answer. The IELTS test usually focuses on topical issues. You have to discuss if you think that the Internet is damaging social interaction.

Technology Development Essay: Are earlier developments the best?

This technology development essay shows you a complex IELTS essay question that is easily misunderstood. There are tips on how to approach IELTS essay questions

Multinational Organisations and Culture Essay

Multinational Organisations and Culture Essay: Improve you score for IELTS Essay writing by studying model essays. This Essay is about the extent to which working for a multinational organisation help you to understand other cultures.

Role of Schools Essay: How should schools help children develop?

This role of schools essay for IELTS is an agree disagree type essay where you have to discuss how schools should help children to develop.

Extinction of Animals Essay: Should we prevent this from happening?

In this extinction of animals essay for IELTS you have to decide whether you think humans should do what they can to prevent the extinction of animal species.

Internet vs Newspaper Essay: Which will be the best source of news?

A recent topic to write about in the IELTS exam was an Internet vs Newspaper Essay. The question was: Although more and more people read news on the internet, newspapers will remain the most important source of news. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Truthfulness in Relationships Essay: How important is it?

This truthfulness in relationships essay for IELTS is an agree / disagree type essay. You need to decide if it's the most important factor.

Dying Languages Essay: Is a world with fewer languages a good thing?

Dying languages essays have appeared in IELTS on several occasions, an issue related to the spread of globalisation. Check out a sample question and model answer.

Airline Tax Essay: Would taxing air travel reduce pollution?

Airline Tax Essay for IELTS. Practice an agree and disagree essay on the topic of taxing airlines to reduce low-cost air traffic. You are asked to decide if you agree or disagree with taxing airlines in order to reduce the problems caused.

Essay for IELTS: Are some advertising methods unethical?

This is an agree / disagree type question. Your options are: 1. Agree 100% 2. Disagree 100% 3. Partly agree. In the answer below, the writer agrees 100% with the opinion. There is an analysis of the answer.

IELTS Sample Essay: Is alternative medicine ineffective & dangerous?

IELTS sample essay about alternative and conventional medicine - this shows you how to present a well-balanced argument. When you are asked whether you agree (or disagree), you can look at both sides of the argument if you want.

Any comments or questions about this page or about IELTS? Post them here. Your email will not be published or shared.

Band 7+ eBooks

"I think these eBooks are FANTASTIC!!! I know that's not academic language, but it's the truth!"

Linda, from Italy, Scored Band 7.5

Bargain eBook Deal! 30% Discount

All 4 Writing eBooks for just  $25.86 Find out more >>

IELTS Modules:

Other resources:.

• Band Score Calculator
• Writing Feedback
• Speaking Feedback
• Teacher Resources
• Free Downloads
• Recent Essay Exam Questions
• Books for IELTS Prep
• Useful Links

Recent Articles

IELTS Academic or General: Which One Should You Take?

Sep 28, 24 02:59 AM

Selling a Mobile Phone to a Friend

Sep 15, 24 02:20 AM

Tips and Technique for IELTS Speaking Part 1

Sep 14, 24 02:41 AM

Important pages

IELTS Writing IELTS Speaking IELTS Listening   IELTS Reading All Lessons Vocabulary Academic Task 1 Academic Task 2 Practice Tests

Connect with us

Before you go...

30% discount - just $25.86 for all 4 writing ebooks.

Copyright © 2022- IELTSbuddy All Rights Reserved

IELTS is a registered trademark of University of Cambridge, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia. This site and its owners are not affiliated, approved or endorsed by the University of Cambridge ESOL, the British Council, and IDP Education Australia.