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
It is true that veganism is not completely free from harm – this should be acknowledged from the outset.
No one can live in modern society without causing some degree of environmental damage, resource depletion, or indirect harm to humans and non-human animals. The definition of veganism itself recognises this limitation, describing the practice as avoiding exploitation as far as is possible and practicable (1).
Veganism is not about moral perfection; it is about harm reduction within real-world constraints.
The Short Answer
Veganism is not completely free from harm, because no lifestyle in modern society is.
But veganism is not about perfection; it is about reducing avoidable harm where practical alternatives exist. Avoiding animal products significantly lowers suffering and environmental damage, even if it does not eliminate all harm.
The idea that ethical action is pointless unless it is flawless is not taken seriously in any other context. Partial efforts still matter, and intention and effort remain morally relevant.
Veganism remains meaningful precisely because it focuses on doing better within real-world limits, rather than demanding impossible purity.
The Detail
“Cruelty Free” Is a Marketing Term, Not a Moral Claim
The phrase “cruelty free” is primarily a certification and marketing label. It usually refers to products that are not tested on animals, often verified by organisations such as Cruelty Free International (2). It does not mean that a product, or a lifestyle, causes no harm whatsoever.
Vegan advocates do not claim to live without impact. We recognise that:
- Plant agriculture affects wildlife (3)
- Manufacturing involves resource extraction (4)
- Global supply chains often involve labour exploitation (5)
Expecting people to eliminate all harm would require living entirely outside modern society, which is unrealistic and inaccessible for most people.
Veganism Is About Minimising Avoidable Harm
The core principle of veganism is not purity, it is proportional responsibility.
Research consistently shows that plant-based diets require fewer resources and cause less environmental damage than animal-based diets (6). Animal agriculture is among the leading drivers of deforestation, biodiversity loss, and greenhouse gas emissions (7).
Avoiding animal products is one of the most effective individual actions available for reducing harm. This does not eliminate all harm, but it does substantially reduce it.
“All or Nothing” Thinking
The claim that veganism is meaningless because it is not perfectly cruelty free relies on flawed reasoning:
“If you cannot eliminate all harm, there is no point trying.”
This logic is rarely accepted in other ethical contexts.
Environmental studies show that partial behavioural changes still produce significant benefits (8). Ethical consumption research demonstrates that incremental improvements influence corporate practices (9). Moral progress almost always occurs through imperfect participation.
Structural Harm Is Not Individual Failure
Much of the harm associated with modern consumption is structural rather than personal. We all operate within systems shaped by:
- Capitalist production models
- Limited ethical alternatives
- Information asymmetries
- Economic constraints
Sociological research shows that individuals often have limited control over the ethical conditions of the goods they consume (10). Holding vegans responsible for systemic harm misdirects attention away from the industries and policies that create it.
Reducing Harm Still Matters
Veganism does not deny that harm continues to exist, it just argues that preventable harm should be avoided. Studies of consumer behaviour show that ethical purchasing, even when inconsistent, contributes to long-term shifts in market practices (11). Boycotting animal products:
- Reduces demand for slaughter
- Lowers production pressure
- Signals social disapproval of exploitation
These effects accumulate over time, especially when viewed in the context of collective action rather than purely individual efforts.
Moral Effort Is Not Invalidated by Imperfection
Moral psychology research consistently shows that people judge ethical actions partly by effort and intention, not only by outcomes (12). There is a meaningful difference between:
- Someone who tries to reduce harm but still causes some
- Someone who makes no attempt to reduce the harm they cause whatsoever
Veganism reflects this basic moral distinction.
Comparison with Other Ethical Commitments
The same reasoning used against veganism could undermine almost any ethical effort.
Why avoid sweatshops if you cannot avoid them completely?
Why reduce emissions if you cannot eliminate them?
Why donate if you cannot end poverty?
Yet research on social change shows that progress depends on cumulative, imperfect action (13). Veganism fits this pattern.
Summary
Veganism is not completely cruelty free, because no ethical lifestyle is. This does not invalidate veganism – it explains why it matters.
- Harm cannot be eliminated, but it can be reduced
- Structural limits do not negate personal responsibility
- Moral effort remains meaningful
- Incremental change produces real effects
Rejecting veganism because it is imperfect is not principled, it is a fairly transparent attempt to avoid ethical engagement. Trying to reduce unnecessary harm, even within flawed systems, remains a worthwhile endevour.
Bibliography
- The Vegan Society. “Definition of Veganism.”
https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism - Cruelty Free International. “Leaping Bunny Programme.”
https://www.crueltyfreeinternational.org/leaping-bunny - Poore, J., & Nemecek, T. “Reducing food’s environmental impacts.” Science, 2018.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaq0216 - United Nations Environment Programme. “Global Resources Outlook.”
https://www.unep.org/resources/global-resources-outlook - International Labour Organization. “Global Supply Chains.”
https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/dw4sd/themes/global-supply-chains - Clark, M. et al. “Global food system emissions.” Nature Food, 2020.
- FAO. “Livestock’s Long Shadow.”
https://www.fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e00.htm - IPCC. “AR6 Mitigation Report.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/ - Nielsen. “The Sustainability Imperative.”
https://www.nielsen.com/global/en/insights/ - Young, I. M. Responsibility for Justice. Oxford University Press, 2011.
- Our World in Data. “Ethical Consumption.”
https://ourworldindata.org/ethical-consumption - Cushman, F. “Moral judgment and decision making.” Annual Review of Psychology, 2013.
- 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
