This piece is part of my “Arguments” series. In this collection of posts, I examine and respond to some of the most common arguments used to defend the exploitation of animals or to criticise veganism.
These articles are not intended to be exhaustive treatments of each topic. Rather, they are designed as practical reference pieces, helping readers reflect on these arguments more carefully and respond to them in a thoughtful, informed way.
You can find other entries in this series here.
The Claim
A common response to veganism is the claim that eating animals cannot be wrong because animals themselves eat one another. This is often accompanied by rhetorical questions about whether or not vegans would try to stop lions from hunting, or whether they intend to interfere with natural ecosystems.
The underlying suggestion is that because predation exists in nature, human consumption of animals is morally justified by default. This is certainly one of the weaker arguments against veganism, since it rests on a misunderstanding of both vegan ethics and how moral responsibility is generally understood.
The Short Answer
That non-human animals hunt and kill one another in the wild does not provide a moral baseline for the behaviour of humans.
As humans, we are moral agents in the way that non-human animals are not. Animals hunt out of instinct and for the purposes of survival, whereas humans living in industrialised, human societies do not.
Animals engage in many behaviours that are widely considered immoral. We do not generally use the behaviour of other animals as our moral baseline in any other context, because we recognise that animals are not good moral role models for humans.
The Detail
What Veganism Actually Opposes
Vegans are not opposed to all animal death, nor do they generally believe that predation in nature is immoral. Wild animals hunt because they must; their survival depends on it.
Veganism is concerned with human behaviour, specifically the unnecessary exploitation and killing of animals for human benefit in situations where alternatives exist.
In modern consumer societies, most people are not dependent on animal products for survival (1). This makes the comparison with wild predators misleading. The issue is not that animals die in nature, it is that humans choose to kill animals for reasons that are largely unrelated to necessity.
Necessity and Moral Responsibility
Necessity is central to ethical judgement.
Wild carnivores hunt because they have no realistic alternative. Obligate carnivores such as lions cannot survive on plant-based diets, and their actions are driven by biological constraint, not preference (2).
Humans, by contrast, generally have access to a wide range of food options. Large dietetic associations recognise that well-planned plant-based diets are nutritionally adequate for all stages of life (3).
This difference matters ethically. Moral responsibility applies where choice exists. When an individual could reasonably act otherwise without serious harm to themselves, their actions become subject to moral evaluation.
A lion hunting a gazelle to avoid starvation and a human buying a cheeseburger from McDonald’s are not morally comparable situations.
Moral Agency and Ethical Standards
Another problem with this argument is that it treats non-human animals as moral role models.
Non-human animals are not moral agents in the way humans are. They do not reflect on ethical principles, weigh alternatives, or consider the broader consequences of their actions (4). Their behaviour is shaped by instinct, environment, and biological need.
Humans, by contrast, are capable of moral reasoning, long-term planning, and ethical reflection. We regularly hold ourselves to higher standards than other animals in every other context.
We do not justify violence, coercion, or territorial aggression by pointing out that other species engage in these behaviours. We recognise that human moral responsibility requires more than copying nature.
Using animal behaviour as a moral guide only when it is convenient is inconsistent at best.
Selective Comparisons With Nature
Appeals to animal behaviour are highly selective.
People often cite obligate carnivores such as lions and wolves while ignoring the fact that many of our closest evolutionary relatives, including chimpanzees and bonobos, consume predominantly plant-based diets (5).
They also ignore the many behaviours in nature that humans would never accept as moral guides, including infanticide, forced mating, and violent territorial conflict. Few people seriously believe that humans should model their ethical behaviour on wildlife in general. This comparison appears almost exclusively in discussions about meat consumption.
This suggests that the argument is usually a post hoc justification (creating a logical-sounding explanation for an action after it has already occured) rather than a genuine ethical foundation.
What Really Motivates Human Consumption
In practice, most people do not eat animals because they observed predators in nature and concluded that this was morally instructive.
They eat animals because they were raised to do so, because it is culturally normal, because animal products are widely available, and because they enjoy the taste (6). These are understandable influences, but they are not ethical justifications.
Appealing to animal predation does not explain why humans continue to exploit animals when alternatives exist, it simply deflects attention away from human responsibility.
Summary
That animals eat one another is undeniable, but it does not provide a moral defence for human consumption of animals.
Wild predators act out of necessity, not choice – they are not moral agents. Humans, however, have access to viable alternatives, and we selectively invoke nature only when it suits us. Veganism does not seek to interfere with ecosystems or judge animals for surviving. It asks humans to take responsibility for their own choices in a context where harm is largely avoidable.
Natural behaviour is not a moral standard – ethical responsibility begins where necessity ends.
Bibliography
- Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. (2025). Vegetarian Dietary Patterns for Adults: A Position Paper of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39923894/ - National Geographic. “Why Lions Hunt and How They Survive in the Wild.”
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/facts/african-lion/ - British Dietetic Association. “Plant-Based Diets.”
https://www.bda.uk.com/resource/vegetarian-vegan-plant-based-diet.html - Bekoff, M., & Pierce, J. (2009). Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals. University of Chicago Press.
- Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. “Primate Diets and Feeding Behavior.”
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/behavior/primate-diet - Joy, M. (2010). Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows. Conari Press.
Support independent, research-based advocacy
Helping keep free, educational content online
