People should aim for full veganism where reasonably possible
This position treats veganism as the strongest ordinary moral response to industrial animal agriculture for people who have the practical ability to adopt it. Its defenders usually argue that once nutritional adequacy is possible and plant-based alternatives are accessible, continuing to buy animal products becomes harder to justify as a mere preference.
It does not require pretending that every edge case disappears. Instead, it claims that exceptions should stay exceptions, and that most affluent consumers are closer to being able to eat vegan than they often admit.
Reasons
- 1.
Animal suffering remains the strongest moral case.
This reason starts from the claim that industrial food systems impose severe harms on sentient animals for ends that are often optional rather than necessary. If a person can remain healthy without buying into those systems, then continuing to participate begins to look less like a neutral preference and more like a morally loaded choice. Defenders of this reason usually add that convenience and taste still matter psychologically, but they do not outweigh avoidable harm once meaningful alternatives exist.
Supports
Avoidable participation in industrial animal suffering creates a strong moral reason to reduce or eliminate animal products.
- FAO livestock systems overview (fao.org)
- WHO: Antimicrobial resistance (who.int)
- 2.
Nutritional objections are real but usually manageable.
This reason does not deny the planning burden. Instead, it argues that the main nutritional objections to veganism are identifiable, teachable, and increasingly easy to solve through ordinary supplementation, fortification, and meal planning. The point is not that nutrition takes no effort, but that the effort is usually modest compared with what critics imply when they treat veganism as inherently unsafe or irresponsible.
Supports
Well-planned vegan diets can meet nutritional needs across most life stages when key nutrients are deliberately managed.
- Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics position paper (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
- NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: Vitamin B12 (ods.od.nih.gov)
Supports
Plant-based diets usually require reliable vitamin B12 intake through fortified foods or supplements.
- NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: Vitamin B12 (ods.od.nih.gov)
- 3.
Current food prices hide major social costs.
This reason broadens the argument beyond private consumption choices. Animal products may look cheap at the checkout, but that price often excludes environmental damage, public-health burdens, antibiotic resistance pressures, and other costs borne by the wider society. If those costs were more visible, defenders argue, vegan choices would look less like expensive moral self-denial and more like a rational response to distorted incentives.
Supports
Animal agriculture imposes public-health and environmental costs that are not fully reflected in retail prices.
- WHO: Antimicrobial resistance (who.int)
Anyone can add a reason, an objection or a source here. You create a free account when you publish. Already have one? Sign in.