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
One of the most common arguments people give in defence of eating animals is that it is “normal.”
The reasoning usually runs something like this: Most people eat animals, this has been the case for a long time, and therefore there is nothing ethically wrong with it. If something is widely practised, it is assumed to be acceptable.
Humans are social creatures, and we tend to take our cues about right and wrong from the communities we live in. When almost everyone around us eats animals, it is easy to assume that this must be morally justified. However, when we look more closely, this argument turns out to be much weaker than it first appears.
The Short Answer
Eating animals is common, but something being common does not automatically make it ethically justified.
Many practices that are now recognised as harmful were once considered normal. Social norms are shaped by culture, advertising, and tradition, not by moral reasoning. When a behaviour is widespread, it often feels unquestionable, even when it causes serious harm.
The fact that most people eat animals tells us something about tradition and social pressure. It does not tell us anything useful about whether or not a practice is right. If we care about ethics, we have to ask whether our actions are justified, not simply whether they are familiar.
The Detail
Popularity Is Not the Same as Moral Justification
Philosophers refer to this type of reasoning as an “appeal to popularity” or “appeal to tradition.” It that if most people believe or do something, then it must be right (1).
History shows us repeatedly that this assumption not reliable. If we sit and reflect for a moment, it isn’t difficult to think of practices that were once considered normal are now widely recognised as unjust or harmful. Slavery, legal segregation, denying women the right to vote, and criminalising homosexuality were all, at different points in history, supported by social majorities (2). This is not to compare eating animals with any of these practices, but these examples do demonstrate how widespread acceptance did not make them ethically defensible.
Moral progress often involves questioning behaviours that are deeply embedded in everyday life. If we treated “normality” as the ultimate moral standard, meaningful social change would be almost impossible. In this sense, the fact that eating animals is common tells us something about culture and habit, but it tells us nothing about whether or not the practice is ethical.
How “Normal” Is Created
We should also keep in mind that what is considered “normal” does not emerge naturally. Many social norms are actively shaped through advertising, media, and cultural pressure.
For example, the widespread expectation that women should shave their body hair can be traced directly to early twentieth-century marketing campaigns that framed natural hair as unhygienic and unattractive (3). This norm did not arise from biology, morality or necessity, but from sustained commercial messaging.
Similar processes can be seen in many other areas of life, including food culture. Ideas about what is “normal” to eat are shaped by family habits, advertising, government policy, and industry influence, rather than by ethical reflection. The fact that a behaviour is widespread, therefore, tells us very little about whether it is justified.
Similar processes can be seen in relation to food. The meat and dairy industries invest billions of dollars each year in marketing, lobbying, and cultural promotion (4). Are you old enough to remember the little milk cartons we got at break time in school? From childhood onwards, people are surrounded by advertisements, school materials, media representations, and social rituals that present animal products as necessary, desirable, and normal.
Psychologist Melanie Joy describes this as “carnism”: an invisible belief system that conditions people to see eating certain animals as natural and unquestionable (5). You Because the system is largely hidden, most people never experience their food choices as moral decisions at all. You can read more about that on my Key Concepts page.
When a behaviour is reinforced from birth by family, education, advertising, and social expectations, it is unsurprising that it comes to feel normal. But conditioning is not the same as justification. That something is the case now and has been for a long time, does not provide any real ethical basis for continuing the practice.
The Comfort of Conformity
Research in social psychology shows that people are strongly influenced by perceived social norms. We tend to adopt the beliefs and behaviours of those around us, often without conscious reflection (6).
Conforming to group norms reduces social friction. It helps us avoid conflict and maintain a sense of belonging. Challenging those norms can feel uncomfortable, even when we privately doubt them.
This helps explain why “everyone does it” feels reassuring. It allows people to avoid examining difficult ethical questions. If something is normal, we do not have to think about it too much. However, moral responsibility cannot be outsourced to the crowd. The fact that a practice is widespread does not remove our obligation to reflect on its consequences.
Normality and Moral Blind Spots
Another problem with the “normal” argument is that it tends to obscure the harm caused by common practices.
When a practice is embedded in everyday routines, its negative effects often become invisible. Slaughterhouses are located far from cities. Advertising shows idealised farms rather than industrial facilities. Language softens reality through terms like “beef” and “pork” instead of “cow” and “pig.” Because everyone has a stake in continuing the practice, the state and corporations have an incentive to hide the uncomfortable consequences from public view.
These distancing mechanisms make it easier for harmful systems to persist without scrutiny (7). Normality, in this sense, does not just describe behaviour, it helps protect that behaviour from criticism.
Thinking Beyond “What Most People Do”
None of this means that people who eat animals are acting in bad faith. Most people inherit their dietary habits without ever being invited to reflect on them seriously. They do what their families did, what their peers do, and what society encourages. That is understandable, but it does not make it justified.
Ethical reflection begins when we ask whether inherited habits still make sense in light of new information and changing circumstances. Today, most people in wealthy societies can meet their nutritional needs without animal products. We have extensive evidence about animal sentience, environmental impacts, and health outcomes. In that context, continuing a practice simply because it is familiar becomes much harder to defend.
The relevant question is not “Is this normal?” It is “Is this justified?”
Summary
The claim that eating animals is acceptable because it is normal commits the logical fallacy of confusing popularity with morality.
Many harmful practices have been normal in the past. Social norms are shaped by powerful interests, and psychological pressures encourage conformity. Widespread habits can, and often do, conceal serious ethical costs.
Recognising this does not require condemning individuals, it just means acknowledging that “normality” is really not a moral argument at all.
When we think carefully about our choices, we are not being abnormal. We are doing what moral reasoning has always required: Examining tradition, weighing evidence, and deciding for ourselves what we believe is right.
Bibliography
- Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and Practice (5th ed.).
Pearson. - Joy, M. (2011). Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An
Introduction to Carnism. Conari Press. - O’Connor, A. (2020). How the Beauty Industry Pressured Women Into
Shaving. The Indiependent.
https://www.indiependent.co.uk/how-the-beauty-industry-pressured-women-into-shaving/ - Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by
Politics and Religion. Pantheon Books. - Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2007). Mistakes Were Made (But Not by
Me). Harcourt.
Support independent, research-based advocacy
Helping keep free, educational content online
