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
This argument claims that because it is impossible to avoid all forms of animal exploitation, veganism is hypocritical or pointless. Since no one can be “perfectly” vegan, the reasoning goes, attempting to be vegan is meaningless.
At first glance, this may sound reasonable. In practice, however, it rests on flawed assumptions about responsibility, intention, and moral consistency.
The Short Answer
It is true that no one can avoid all animal exploitation in a world built around it, but this does not make the attempt in any way hypocritical.
Veganism does not require perfection, it just asks people to reduce avoidable harm where reasonable alternatives exist. In cases where there is no meaningful choice, moral responsibility is limited.
The idea that ethical action is pointless unless it is perfect is not taken seriously in any other context. Partial efforts still reduce harm, and intention and available alternatives matter.
Not being 100% vegan does not undermine veganism. It highlights the fact that making conscious, imperfect efforts to reduce harm is still morally meaningful.
The Detail
Confusing Imperfection with Hypocrisy
It is true that no one can live in a world completely free from animal exploitation. Animals are used in:
- Pharmaceuticals and medical testing (1)
- Some plastics, glues, and industrial chemicals (2)
- Agricultural practices that affect wildlife (3)
- Supply chains that are difficult to trace (4)
Under capitalism, consumers often have little or no meaningful choice. Information is often unavailable, or alternatives may not exist.
Vegans generally acknowledge this reality. The philosophy of veganism does not require absolute purity. It asks people to avoid animal exploitation as far as is practicable and possible (5). The impossibility of perfection does not imply hypocrisy, it just reflects the limits of individual control within complex systems.
“If You Can’t Do Everything, Do Nothing”
The core logic of this argument is:
“If you cannot avoid all harm, there is no point trying to reduce harm.”
This reasoning is rarely accepted in any other moral context. Environmental research consistently shows that partial behavioural changes still produce measurable benefits (6). Ethical consumption studies likewise show that individual purchasing choices do influence corporate practices, if only in limited ways (7).
Only in discussions of animal exploitation is moral effort dismissed because it does not result in perfect outcomes.
Veganism Is About Reducing Avoidable Harm
Veganism focuses on choices that are realistically within the individual’s control. Most people in wealthy societies can:
- Avoid meat, dairy, eggs, and fish
- Choose plant-based alternatives
- Refuse leather, fur, and wool
Major dietetic organisations agree that well-planned vegan diets are nutritionally adequate for most people (8). Avoiding animal products reduces demand for industries built on confinement and slaughter. Economic research shows that consumer behaviour directly affects production levels in animal agriculture (9).
Imperfect participation can still result in positive change.
Lack of Choice Changes Moral Responsibility
Ethical responsibility depends on whether a person could reasonably have acted otherwise. There is a huge moral difference between:
- Taking medication tested on animals because no alternative exists
- Buying animal products when multiple plant-based options are available
Moral philosophers widely recognise that responsibility depends on available alternatives and degrees of constraint (10). Vegan ethics reflects this distinction.
Intention Matters
There is a difference between:
- Someone who tries to avoid exploitation and occasionally fails
- Someone who makes no effort at all
Research in moral psychology shows that people consistently judge actions differently depending on intent and effort, even when outcomes are similar (11). Veganism follows this same principle.
The Argument Misplaces Responsibility
This criticism often shifts blame away from exploitative systems and onto those trying to resist them. Sociological research on social movements shows that focusing on activist “inconsistency” is a common strategy used to delegitimise reform efforts (12).
Blaming individuals who are trying to reduce harm does nothing to address structural problems, it only shifts the blame away from corporations and onto the people who are trying to oppose them. This plays into corporate interests.
Comparison with Other Ethical Movements
Environmentalists still use electricity. Human rights advocates still live in unequal societies. Anti-sweatshop campaigners still rely on global supply chains. None of this invalidates their work.
Studies of ethical movements consistently show that progress is driven by imperfect participation within imperfect systems (13). Veganism is no different.
Summary
It is true that no one can be 100% vegan in a world structured around animal exploitation, but this does not undermine veganism. It demonstrates why conscious effort matters.
- Moral responsibility applies where choice exists
- Reducing harm is better than ignoring it
- Imperfection does not invalidate ethical commitment
- Intention and effort remain morally relevant
Rejecting veganism because it cannot be practiced perfectly is not a serious, principled position – it is a way of avoiding self-reflection or having to make any changes to our own lifestyles.
Trying to reduce unnecessary harm, even imperfectly, is a great deal better than doing nothing at all.
Bibliography
- European Medicines Agency. “Non-clinical Safety Studies.”
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human-regulatory/research-development/non-clinical-safety-studies - Humane Society International. “Animal-Derived Ingredients in Industry.”
https://www.hsi.org/issues/animal_testing/ - Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. “Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers.” Science, 2018.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaq0216 - OECD. “Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Supply Chains.”
https://www.oecd.org/investment/due-diligence-guidance.htm - The Vegan Society. “Definition of Veganism.”
https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). “AR6 Mitigation Report.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/ - Nielsen. “The Sustainability Imperative.” https://www.nielsen.com/global/en/insights/
- Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. “Position on Vegetarian Diets.” Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2016.
https://www.jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(16)31192-3/fulltext - Our World in Data. “Meat and Dairy Production.”
https://ourworldindata.org/meat-production - Scanlon, T. What We Owe to Each Other. Harvard University Press, 1998.
- Cushman, F. “Moral judgment and decision making.” Annual Review of Psychology, 2013.
- Gitlin, T. The Whole World Is Watching. University of California Press, 2003.
- Snow, D., Soule, S., & Kriesi, H. The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Wiley-Blackwell, 2004.
Support independent, research-based advocacy
Helping keep free, educational content online
