Philosophical Vegan Forum

What is your best argument against veganism?

I'd like to hear vegan and non-vegan answers. "There is no such thing" doesn't count.

If we are going by this definition of veganism

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 any other purpose.

the *best* argument I think you can make against that is something like, "I don't care about (any) animals, other people, the environment or my health." This is the only logically consistent argument I think you can make against veganism. Meat eaters tend to make arguments that are inconsistent in one way or the other (they aren't total psychopaths after all), and they won't say something as extreme as what I suggested.

Zelur wrote:What is your best argument against veganism?

b12

knot got it.

The best argument is just not caring about anything but your own immediate hedonistic pleasure (not caring about your future, or other human beings, or animals, etc.)
These are the same kinds of people who use hard drugs, usually.

If somebody isn't really into cocaine, meth, bath salts, etc. I would question his or her honesty if that claim was made.
Most people DO care about at least some of these things, and they get angry at others for not caring about the things they care for -- even while pretending not to care about another intimately related issue to avoid feelings of responsibility.

Other arguments are semantic in nature.
E.g. if you argue that oysters are not sentient, but are not vegan, and thus veganism is arbitrary.

That's a definition quibble. If somebody feels that way, then they should feel free to call themselves Bivalvegans/Ostrovegans/Oyster-vegans etc.
Yet, many vegans also argue that Oysters should be considered vegan, or at least that the vegan police should leave that up to the individual and not attempt to revoke people's vegan credentials on those grounds.

It's an issue that is not settled within veganism, and so it's a poor argument. And it's not an argument at all against Bivalveganism.

Jebus wrote:

Zelur wrote:What is your best argument against veganism?

b12

How is that an argument against veganism? There's vegan b12. You mean the slight inconvenience?

brimstoneSalad wrote:

Jebus wrote:

Zelur wrote:What is your best argument against veganism?

b12

How is that an argument against veganism? There's vegan b12. You mean the slight inconvenience?

To be clear, I don't think the b12 argument is a good one. However, as vegan b12 was not available until one generation ago, I think it's the strongest among a long list of crap arguments against veganism.

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Other arguments are semantic in nature.
E.g. if you argue that oysters are not sentient, but are not vegan, and thus veganism is arbitrary.

my concern with eating oysters is not their wellbeing, since they aren't sentient, but rather with the damage caused to the environment they reside, which could negatively impact the sentient beings that dwell within. Thoughts?

Jebus wrote:

Zelur wrote:What is your best argument against veganism?

b12

Ahem, I would like to give one of The Vegan Atheist's most common assertions: We live in a first world country (at least most of us I hope) and can get our b12 from supplements.

TheVeganAtheist wrote:

brimstoneSalad wrote:
Other arguments are semantic in nature.
E.g. if you argue that oysters are not sentient, but are not vegan, and thus veganism is arbitrary.

my concern with eating oysters is not their wellbeing, since they aren't sentient, but rather with the damage caused to the environment they reside, which could negatively impact the sentient beings that dwell within. Thoughts?

It depends on how they were farmed.
Oysters can be used to clean polluted environments, and rope-grown oysters are very low impact farming that clean the water and improve the environment without doing damage to their substrates. It may actually kill fewer sentient beings per gram of protein than land plants, although I would not make that assertion without research (it is plausible).