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
Appeals to culture and heritage are often used to defend long-standing practices, and eating animals is no exception. The argument usually takes the form: This is how my community has always lived, therefore it is morally acceptable.
To examine this fairly, we first need to be clear about what we mean by “culture.” Broadly speaking, culture refers to the shared customs, values, traditions, and social practices of a group (1). When people invoke culture in defence of eating animals, this is usually what they have in mind.
At its simplest, the argument becomes: This is ethical because it is how we behave as a group. Framed this way, a central problem becomes clear. Cultural prevalence explains why a practice exists, but it does not, by itself, justify it.
The Short Answer
Culture helps explain why people eat animals, but it does not automatically justify doing so. Many practices have been culturally accepted in the past that are now recognised as harmful. Tradition and heritage can shape behaviour, but they are not reliable guides to what is ethically right.
For most people in modern, industrialised societies, eating animals is no longer a matter of survival; it is a consumer choice made in a context where plant-based alternatives are widely available.
While Indigenous and subsistence-hunting communities are operating in an entirely different context due to their unique circumstances, this does not justify animal consumption in wealthy consumer societies. Understanding the cultural meaning of food is important, but it does not remove our responsibility to question whether harmful traditions should continue when more sustainable, more humane alternatives exist.
The Detail
Culture Explains Behaviour, It Does Not Justify It
Many harmful practices have been widespread or culturally embedded at different points in history. Racism, sexism, and discrimination have all been deeply rooted in social traditions in many societies (2). Their cultural status did not make them morally acceptable.
We generally recognise that cultures evolve. Practices are questioned, revised, and sometimes abandoned as moral understanding develops and technology advances (3). Few people today would argue that a tradition should be preserved simply because it is old, particularly not in cases when that practice is harmful.
For this reason, “we have always done this” is not, on its own, a strong ethical defence. It tells us something about social history, but very little about what we ought to do now.
The Limits of Cultural Relativism
Some people respond to this line of thinking by appealing to cultural relativism – the idea that moral standards are entirely relative to particular societies (4).
Taken to its logical conclusion, this position makes moral criticism almost impossible. It would require us to treat any culturally accepted practice as beyond ethical evaluation, regardless of the harm involved.
In practice, most people do not apply cultural relativism consistently. We are willing to criticise harmful traditions in many contexts. Eating animals is often treated as an exception rather than a genuine principle, and we appeal to cultural relatavism ionly when it is convenient.
Heritage, History, and Changing Circumstances
When the argument is framed in terms of heritage, it usually becomes: This is acceptable because our ancestors did it. But past necessity does not automatically justify present practice.
For much of human history, animal consumption was closely tied to survival (5). In many environments, it was difficult or impossible to meet basic nutritional needs without hunting or fishing. For some communities, this is still the case.
For most people in industrialised societies today, however, this is no longer the case. Major health organisations now recognise that well-planned plant-based diets are nutritionally adequate for all stages of life (6). What was once a survival strategy has, for most of us, become a consumer choice. This change in context matters ethically.
I address this version of the argument in more detail here.
Indigenous and Subsistence Communities
Discussions of culture and food often raise the example of Indigenous and subsistence-hunting communities. These cases deserve particular care and respect.
For many such communities, hunting and fishing are not optional lifestyle choices. They are tied to survival, land stewardship, spiritual traditions, and social identity (7). Many have lived sustainably within their ecosystems for generations. It would be unjust to equate these situations with consumer choices in industrialised societies.
Asking someone in an urban supermarket culture to replace their cheeseburgers with plant-based alternatives is not comparable to asking a subsistence community to abandon its entire way of life. When we are advocating veganism to a general audience, we are not talking to or about Indigenous or subsistence-hunting communities.
Understanding Is Not the Same as Endorsement
To acknowledge the cultural meaning of food is not to deny its moral significance.
People form deep emotional connections to traditional meals, family rituals, and shared identities (8). These attachments help explain why dietary change can feel threatening.
But understanding why people hold certain practices does not require us to conclude that those practices are therefore automatically ethically justified, or that they are immune to moral criticism entirely. The acknowledgement and respect of cultural signifiance can co-exist with moral reflection and advocating for change.
Choice in Consumer Societies
In modern consumer societies, most people who appeal to culture are not relying on food practices for survival. They are participating in industrial systems involving large-scale confinement, slaughter, and environmental harm (9).
In these contexts, appeals to heritage often function less as genuine cultural defence and more as a way to avoid ethical discomfort.
It is rarely subsistence hunters making this argument. It is usually people shopping in supermarkets, who absolutely do have access do a wide variety of plant-based options.
We are not asking people to abandon their cultural traditions, we are asking them to adapt them so that they are more humane, more sustainable, and take into account the interests of non-human animals.
Summary
Culture and heritage shape how people eat, and those influences deserve understanding and respect. However, cultural tradition alone is not a sufficient moral defence for practices that cause serious harm, especially when viable alternatives exist.
Most societies revise their traditions in light of new ethical insight. Diet is no exception.
Recognising the cultural roots of animal consumption helps explain why change is difficult, but it does not remove our responsibility to reflect on whether those practices remain justified today.
Bibliography
- UNESCO. What Is Culture?
https://en.unesco.org/creativity/governance/culture - American Psychological Association. Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination
https://www.apa.org/topics/racism-bias-discrimination - British Academy. Moral Change and Social Progress
https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/blog/moral-progress/ - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Moral Relativism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/ - National Geographic. When Humans First Started Eating Meat
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/when-humans-first-started-eating-meat - Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Position on Vegetarian Diets
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704/ - FAO. Indigenous Peoples’ Food Systems
https://www.fao.org/indigenous-peoples/our-work/food-systems/en/ - Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Food, Culture, and Identity
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/food-features/cultural-foods/ - Our World in Data. Environmental Impacts of Food Production
https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impacts-of-food
Support independent, research-based advocacy
Helping keep free, educational content online
