Eating Animals and the Environment

Dan Hooley and Nathan Nobis

For Hale and Light, eds., The Routledge Companion to Environmental Ethics

  Draft: 7/17/15
6200 words

Table of Contents
I. Introduction..........................................................................................................................1
II. Environmental Damage from Animal Agriculture..............................................................3
III. Eating and the Environment................................................................................................4
Reasons to Reduce...................................................................................................4
Environmentalism and Veganism............................................................................6
An Objection: ‘Imperfect’ Environmental Duties?.................................................8
IV. Eating Animals..................................................................................................................10
Farmed Animal Facts.............................................................................................11
“Factory Farming” versus So-Called “Humane” Farming....................................12
The Harm of Death................................................................................................13
These Harms Aren't Justified.................................................................................14
Objections to Veganism.........................................................................................16
V. Conclusion: Animals and the Environment.......................................................................19

I. Introduction 

Globally, approximately 50 to 60 billion land animals are raised and killed each year for human

consumption. Farmed animals exist, of course, because human beings want to eat them. These

animals’ lives and existence, however, contribute to significant environmental damage. They

must be fed and watered, and crops must be raised and transported to do this. This all requires

massive amounts of water, land, fertilizer, and energy. These animals produce huge quantities of

manure and flatulence, and breathe out carbon dioxide. This all contributes significantly to air

and water pollution and is a major contributor to global climate change. 

Human habits of eating animals, therefore, results in much environmental damage. Much

of this could be avoided by our simply eating plants, instead of animals who eat plants. Plants

1
obviously produce no manure or gas, and plant-based diets use far less water, land, fertilizer and

energy to produce compared to diets with few animal products. And far fewer plants are needed

to feed human beings directly. To give just one example, it takes 16 pounds of grains, and

thousands of gallons of water, to produce just 1 pound of hamburger, whereas those 16 pounds of

grains could be made into, e.g., 16 loaves of bread.1

While many human activities negatively affect the environment, many are very difficult

to reduce or eliminate completely, and reducing the environmental impact of others can be quite

costly. Not eating meat and other animal products, however, is relatively easy for most people.

When it comes to efforts we can take to lessen our environmental impact, abstaining from meat

and other animal products is ‘low-hanging fruit.’ It’s an action that dramatically helps the

environment that, for most people, would not negatively affect their well-being: indeed, it may

even enhance it. 

Here we consider how concern for the environment relates to our own eating habits, in

particular, the consumption of animals and animal products. Based on broad concerns for the

environment, we argue that there are strong moral reasons to radically reduce our consumption

of animal-based foods, and that this reduction is a moral obligation. We concede that this

conclusion is vague, but environmental concerns do clearly encourage and support raising far

fewer animals and eating less meat and animal products. We will argue that these concerns

alone, however, cannot ground a moral obligation for individuals to be strict vegetarians or

vegans.

Nevertheless, when concerns for the environment are combined with concerns for

animals themselves, a powerful moral argument for veganism can be made. We develop such an

1
See, e.g., the Water Footprint Network’s “Water footprint of crop and animal products: a comparison” at
http://waterfootprint.org/en/water-footprint/product-water-footprint/water-footprint-crop-and-animal-products/

2
argument. Finally, we conclude with some brief thoughts about how non-human animals might

fit into, and relate, to our concern for ‘the environment’. 

I. Environmental Damage from Animal Agriculture 

Animal agriculture, as it is practiced today, is an environmental disaster.  Perhaps the most

significant and pressing environmental damage caused by animal agriculture concerns global

climate change. While the estimates of the precise contribution of animal agriculture to climate

change vary, it is clear that animal agriculture is one of the biggest contributors to the warming

of our planet. A 2006 report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization,

entitled Livestock’s Long Shadow, estimated that 18% of greenhouse gases were attributable to

animal agriculture, more than all of transportation combined.2 Goodland and Anhang however,

have argued that this report seriously underestimates the contribution of animal agriculture to

global climate change.3 They estimate animal agriculture accounts for 32.6 billion tons of carbon

dioxide per year or 51% of global greenhouse gas emissions.  

Whatever the exact contribution, it is beyond dispute that animal agriculture is a major

contributor to global climate change. Animal agriculture does this in a variety of ways. Much of

this contribution comes from clearing land and forests to graze animals, feeding animals (which

requires significantly more food, and energy intensive inputs to produce this food, than if

humans grew and ate plants directly), the life processes of farmed animals (including the waste

they produce, flatulence, and respiration of carbon dioxide), as well as all the energy needed to

process and transport the ‘end products’. 

2
Henning Steinfeld et al., Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental
Issues and Options, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006. At
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM
3
“Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change are...cows, pigs, and chickens?” in
World Watch Magazine, November/December, Volume 22, number 6. At http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294

3
 But animal agriculture also harms the environment in many other ways. Raising animals

for food requires significantly more inputs (land, fertilizer, energy, and water) than would be

required to only grow plants for human consumption. As a result, animal agriculture puts much

more strain on finite resources, like land and water, than alternative methods of food

production.  

Finally, because animals are produced in confinement in such large numbers, disposing

of animal waste has become a significant environmental problem. Farmed animals produce more

than three times the amount of manure produced by humans, and the excess manure, and

inappropriate land application of such large quantities of animal waste brings

antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, and heavy metals into our waterways, lakes, groundwater,

soils, and airways.4   

II. Eating and the Environment 

Reasons to Reduce

The overwhelming environmental destruction caused by animal agriculture has implications for

how we, as individuals, should approach eating. 

Our starting point is the premise that individuals have some moral obligations to mitigate

their impact on the environment, including global climate change. This general obligation,

however, can be fulfilled in a variety of ways, some of which are easier than others. And choices

about eating often are easier choices than others. Unlike buying a Prius, or outfitting our home

with solar panels, the choice to eat a plant-based diet needn’t be expensive and, in most cases, is

unlikely to cost someone more than eating a diet heavy in animal products. Unlike other ways of

4
Pew Commission, and Pew Commission. "Putting meat on the table: Industrial farm animal production in
America." Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (2008), p. 9.
http://www.ncifap.org/reports/

4
reducing one’s impact on the environment (such as riding public transit or using a bicycle to

commute to work), eating a vegan diet is something nearly all of us can do, and we can do it in

addition to whatever else we are doing to reduce our environmental impact. Nearly

everyone living in developed countries has access to plant-based foods that they can purchase

and consume. This is not true of many other ways we can reduce our impact on climate change

and the environment. 

Choosing to consume a plant-based diet can also have a significant effect on reducing our

own negative impact on the environment. In 2006, researchers at the University of

Chicago found that someone who ditches a standard American diet, heavy in animal products,

for a vegetarian diet, reduces their emissions as much as a person who trades in a standard car for

a Toyota Prius.5 In 2008, Germany’s Foodwatch Institute estimated that switching from a

conventionally grown standard diet to a conventionally grown vegan diet reduces one’s

emissions by 87%.6 And a recent study by researchers in the UK found similar results: in the UK,

the carbon footprint of the average vegan was approximately 60% less than that of the average

‘heavy meat eater’.7

Taken together, these factors explain why, unlike other ways of reducing our impact on

climate change, we all have very strong moral reasons to alter our diet, and at least radically

reduce the amount of meat and animal products we consume. This is something almost everyone

can do, and usually quite easily and inexpensively. While some effort is certainly required to

5
Eshel, Gidon, and Pamela A. Martin. "Diet, energy, and global warming." Earth interactions 10.9 (2006): 1-17. At
http://pge.uchicago.edu/workshop/documents/martin1.pdf
6
World Preservation Foundation Report, “Reducing Shorter-Lived Climate Forcers Through Dietary Change”
http://www.worldpreservationfoundation.org/Downloads/Livestock-Production-World-Preservation-Foundation.pdf
7
Scarborough, Peter, et al. "Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in
the UK." Climatic change 125.2 (2014): 179-192. At http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-014-1169-
1. This study defined the “heavy meat’ category as anyone who eats 3.5 ounces or more of meat per day. However,
this is a relatively low bar. The average Brit eats about twice as much meat as this, so the difference in carbon
footprints between the average vegan and the average meat eater in the UK are likely much greater.

5
switch to a plant-based diet, after this switch has been made, eating a mostly-vegan diet can be

done without a great deal of effort.  

Environmentalism and Veganism

Clearly there are moral reasons based on the environment to reduce the production and

consumption of farmed animals. Some argue, however, that environmental concern justifies a

moral obligation to not raise or consume any farmed animals or their products (like dairy and

eggs) and, thus, that environmentalism necessitates veganism. We disagree: environmental

concerns, including our personal contributions to climate change, cannot, in themselves, ground

a moral obligation to eat a strict vegan diet. Here’s why.

First, an adequate concern for the environment is consistent with some meat eating, if

such concern is consistent with other avoidable activities that contribute to some environmental

degradation, like driving cars or flying in airplanes when, honestly, we really don’t need

to. Raising some limited amount of animals for food needn’t be worse, environmentally, than

some other environmentally-unfriendly activities, so if the latter are morally acceptable, at least

on environmental grounds, then so is eating some meat. Those who argue that environmental

concern requires veganism seem to think that environmentalism requires doing everything we

easily can to eliminate negative impact on the environment: we think, however, that this demand

is too much. Serious environmental concern is compatible with causing some negative

environmental impact: that would allow for some limited animal agriculture and non-vegan

eating.

Second, environmental arguments for veganism often overlook the climate

impact that different foods have. While it is true that, taken as a whole, meat and animal products

6
contribute significantly more to climate change then plants, the production of certain types of

animals contributes much more than others, and in some circumstances, some plant foods appear

to contribute more to climate change than some animal products. For example, ruminant animals

(like lambs and cows) contribute significantly more emissions, per 1,000 calories produced, than

other types of animals used for food.8 More surprisingly, some plants, like tomatoes and broccoli

may contribute more emissions, per 1,000 calories, than animal products like pork, chicken,

milk, yogurt, cheese, and eggs.9 The emissions produced to sustain a plant-based diet are still

significantly less than a diet that involved large portions of animal products like pork, chicken,

milk, and eggs. But there certainly are some important exceptions. For example, a diet involving

local, sustainably caught wild fish, in some circumstances, may contribute no more to climate

change than a fully plant-based diet. So, while environmental concerns, by themselves, provide

reasons to move away from animal products, these concerns don’t always rule out all animal

products. 

Third, occasionally purchasing and consuming animal products would, if anything, only

have a tiny effect on the climate, such that we don’t think we have an obligation, on the basis of

environmental duties alone, to never purchase and consume these products. This type of

argument may seem suspect, however, since it seems to justify occasionally not recycling, even

if when it easy to recycle. But if some minimal environmental damage is permissible, we are not

always morally obligated to do every pro-environmental behavior we can, even when the action

is easy. For example, we could easily not drive a car to a restaurant for dinner or the theater on

any particular evening, since we can easily forgo that night out. But if going out when we don’t
8
Haspel, Tamar, “Vegetarian or omnivore: The environmental implications of diet,’ Washington Post, March 10,
2014. At http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/vegetarian-or-omnivore-the-environmental-implications-of-
diet/2014/03/10/648fdbe8-a495-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html
9
Haspel, Tamar, “Vegetarian or omnivore: The environmental implications of diet,’ Washington Post, March 10,
2014. At http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/vegetarian-or-omnivore-the-environmental-implications-of-
diet/2014/03/10/648fdbe8-a495-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

7
“need” to do so is not wrong, then at least occasional and limited negative impacts on the

environment are permissible and so some animal agriculture might be allowed.

An Objection: ‘Imperfect’ Environmental Duties?

Taking into consideration these objections, we believe environmental considerations do not

require that one adopt a strict vegan diet. Nevertheless, we believe these concerns require people

to significantly reduce their consumption of meat and other animal products: continuing to eat

meat and animal products at present rates and quantities is wrong.

An objector may ask how we can single out any one particular activity as one thing

everyone is obligated to do to reduce their contributions to climate change. Even if we grant that

there are obligations to reduce our negative environmental impact, someone might deny that we

are obligated to do any particular  action to reduce their impact on the environment. This

position would suggest that our duties to the environment are, as Kant put it, “imperfect duties,”

roughly, general obligations that can be satisfied in a variety of ways. After all, there are many

ways we can mitigate our negative impact on the environment. With respect to global climate

change, people can often use public transit or a bicycle instead of a car, they can reduce their

energy consumption in their homes, they can purchase more energy efficient appliances, and so

on. So even if we are willing to grant an individual obligation to reduce our negative,

environmental impact, it is not clear why any particular way of reducing our environmental

impact is obligatory. Some might say: as long as we are doing something for the environment,

we are fine.

To illustrate, imagine a man who considers his consumption of meat and animal

products to be something that is central to his life and that gives his life great value and meaning.

8
He is, however, an environmentalist, and when confronted by the facts about the way animal

agriculture contributes so much to climate change, he is dismayed. Rather than deciding to

forego or even reduce his consumption of these products, our meat-loving environmentalists

decides he will redouble his efforts to reduce his effect on the environment in other ways, to

make up for his meat-eating ways: he will reduce or avoid altogether traveling on jets, he decides

against having a child, spends his summers planting trees, and commits only to using his bike

and public transit for most of his transportation. His objection is that he has done enough for the

environment, so he need not reduce his meat intake.

While this is an important objection, we believe it can be met. As we have already noted,

choosing to abstain from meat and other animal products is one of the most effective ways

individuals can reduce their contribution to climate change. It is also something nearly all of us

can do in addition to whatever other efforts we undertake to lesson our climate impact. All of us

have to eat. Adopting a plant-based diet does take some effort, but once this effort is made, it is

relatively easy to sustain. Ignoring our diet, then, jettisons one of the most significant ways we

contribute to climate change, and one that is relatively easy (and far from cost-prohibitive) to

address. The meat loving environmentalist could, rather easily, do more to lesson his impact on

the climate by choosing to eat a plant-based diet. The fact that he doesn’t want to give up meat,

and is already doing a great deal to lesson his impact, doesn’t change this fact. His reluctance

seems analogous to an unwillingness to recycle, when he could easily do so, because he already

“does so much for the environment.” But doing a lot does not eliminate the need to do the little,

doing what’s difficult doesn’t preclude the need to do what’s easy.

As a result, we don't think this objection succeeds. Significantly reducing one's

consumption of meat and other animal products is an effective, relatively easy, and affordable

9
way nearly everyone in developed countries can reduce their environmental impact. This

obligation is not averted by the mere fact that others may choose to reduce their environmental

impact in other, additional ways. However, as we will see shortly, the environmental impact of

one's dietary choices is not the only morally relevant concern that confront how we ought to eat.

III. Eating Animals 

Raising and killing animals for food is wrong, we believe, because of the ways these practices

seriously harm other animals. If a practice causes serious harms to an individual or individuals,

then it requires a moral justification, or else the practice is morally wrong: serious harms require

good reasons to justify them. We believe that attempts to justify the serious harms inflicted on

animals raised for food do not succeed. Thus, the practice of raising and killing animals for food

is wrong. 

This argument depends on a simple, uncontroversial moral principle, that it’s wrong to

cause serious harms unless there is a good reason to do so.10 In addition to moral principles, our

argument also depends on the facts about how animals are treated and some moral thinking about

harms to animals, which we now briefly review.

10
Other influential arguments for veganism have been made from more complex premises: e.g., Peter Singer’s
argument, from Animal Liberation and other works, based on the premise that animals’ interests (in avoiding pain,
suffering and death, and other harms) should be given equal consideration to comparable humans’ interests; Tom
Regan’s argument (from The Case for Animal Rights and more recent works) based on the premise that animals who
are “subjects of lives,” that is, conscious, sentient, experiential beings, have basic moral rights to respectful
treatment just as conscious, sentient, experiential human beings do and these rights preclude harmful treatment and
use; Mark Rowlands’ John Rawls-inspired argument, from Animals Like Us and other works, that, if we were behind
a “veil of ignorance” and so didn’t know whether we were human or animal, and had to choose whether animals are
raised and killed to satisfy the non-vital human interest in eating animals, we would choose that animals not be
eaten, as this is the rational, impartial decision; and many more arguments, based on nearly any plausible moral-
theoretical perspective.

10
Farmed Animal Facts

The vast majority of land animals humans in North America and, increasingly, in much of the

rest of the world, eat come from Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), commonly

known as factory farms. The ways animals are harmed in these operations has been extensively

documented.11  

Many of the ways animals raised in factory farms are harmed stem from their extreme

confinement. Egg laying hens are confined in battery cages - wired cages, stacked on top of each

other - where the birds lack the space to engage in natural behaviors, including basic things like

walking on solid ground or spreading their wings. Sows (female pigs used for breeding) are

confined for most of their lives in gestation crates, where they lack the space to even turn around.

Like these animals, the vast majority of farmed animals raised in the U.S. live in close

confinement and this results in variety of harms, including: physical injuries, pain and

suffering, disease, immobilization, boredom, psychological distress, and often death.  

Animals on factory farms also experience painful body mutilations. The beaks of egg-

laying hens are sliced or burnt off, pigs are castrated and have their tails cut off, and cows are

branded, castrated, and dehorned. These mutilations cause animals severe pain - sometimes even

chronic pain - and are all done without anesthetic.  

These ways animals are harmed in factory farms are all standard industrial practices,

not aberrations. In addition to these harms, animals raised for food are sometimes abused

and injured by workers in other ways.  

Animals raised on factory farmed are also harmed in ways other than the pain and

psychological harm that is inflicted upon them. These animals are harmed by being deprived of

11
For a succinct overview of the ways farmed animals are harmed, see Mercy for Animal’s video, “From Farm to
Fridge.” At http://www.meatvideo.com/

11
many of the goods crucial to their well-being. By failing to provide the space and resources

needed for good lives, we seriously harm them: they are denied what they need for basic, natural

and social behaviors, and to live lives that are good for them. 

“Factory Farming” versus So-Called “Humane” Farming

 The vast majority of animals raised for food in North America live out their short lives on

factory farms. Nevertheless, many individuals feel that if farmed animals are given a genuinely

good life, and then painlessly killed, there is nothing wrong with raising and killing them for

food. If smaller farms could avoid harming animals in the ways we’ve noted above - not simply

by not inflicting harms upon them, but also by providing them with the goods necessary for a

flourishing life - then what is there to object to? 

The first thing to note is that very few actual farms live up to this ideal. While some

farms do give the animals they raise more space and better living conditions, the animals are

often still seriously harmed. Many smaller farms still inflict painful body mutilations, such as

castration, dehorning, and branding, on the animals. With this, many of these animals still face

harms that come from transport to slaughter (such as abuse in handling, severe dehydration and

hunger, and suffering from crowding as well as overheating or extreme cold). The biggest issue,

however, is that animals raised for food are still harmed by an untimely death. 

Even if animals enjoyed a good and flourishing life on an idyllic farm, we believe killing

that animal for its meat seriously harms that animal, and thus requires a justification. Crucially,

that death can seriously harm other animals is not simply a matter of whether or not the animal

suffers or experiences pain in the process of being killed. Often, however, animals slaughtered

for food in North America do experience a painful death. While U.S. law mandates that cows

12
and pigs be made unconscious before being killed, the rapid pace at which these animals are

slaughtered means that many have their throat slit while still fully conscious.12 This law,

however, excludes birds, fish, and rabbits. Chickens and turkeys, for example, make up the vast

majority of animals slaughtered in the U.S. (nearly 9 billion every year), and have their throats

slit by a mechanical blade while fully conscious.13

The Harm of Death

But even if these animals did not experience pain, killing them still seriously harms them. A

painless death is not harmless. For the vast majority of animals humans kill for food, their lives

are ended after but a small fraction of their natural lifespan. Chickens, to give just one example,

are killed at about 6 weeks, while they can typically live between 8 to 12 years! Cutting their

lives short seriously harms animals because the good lives they could have experienced are taken

away from them.  

Nearly all of us recognize this when it comes to our companion animals (and ourselves!).

If your cat, for example, needed a medical procedure that would cause her some short-term pain

and discomfort, but that was required to extend her life and allow her to live several enjoyable

years, the right thing to do is opt for the medical procedure. It would be wrong to painlessly kill

your cat to avoid her experiencing any pain and the reason for this is quite simple: your cat has a

very strong interest in continuing to live. Yet we can only maintain this if we affirm that an

untimely death is not in the interest of other animals!14 

12
See Pachirat, Timothy. Every twelve seconds: Industrialized slaughter and the politics of sight. Yale University
Press, 2011.
13
Humane Society of the United States, ‘The Welfare of Birds at Slaughter,’ 2009:
http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/slaughter/research/welfare_birds_slaughter.html
14
See Harman, “The Moral Significance of Animal Pain and Animal Death” in Beauchamp, Tom L., and Raymond
Gillespie Frey. The Oxford handbook of animal ethics. Oxford University Press, 2011.

13
 Death is a serious harm to other animals: it robs them of everything, their existence and

the possibility of a valuable future. As a result, even when animals have lived good lives and are

killed painlessly, ending their lives prematurely seriously harms them, and thus requires a moral

justification. 

These Harms Aren't Justified

Animals raised for food - in both factory farms and less intensive farms - are seriously harmed.

This should not be in doubt. These practices can only be justified, then, if these harms can be

morally justified. However, there are no sufficient moral justifications that would justify these

harms.

Two of the most common motivations for consuming meat and animal products - health

and the pleasure one gets from eating these products - fail to justify the serious harms these

practices inflict on farmed animals. Many individuals consume animal products because they

believe they are important to a healthy diet. However, it is now clear that humans can survive

and flourish on a vegan, plant-based diet.15 Humans do not need to eat meat or other animal

products to survive, or even to live healthy lives. In fact, increasingly the evidence seems to

suggest that the opposite is the case.

With this, the pleasure humans get from eating meat and other animal products does not

justify the serious harms we inflict on other animals. Many of us recognize this basic truth when

it comes to practices unrelated to eating that inflict serious harms on other animals. We don't

think that dog-fighting or cock-fighting are justified, even if it is the case that many humans get a

15
See, among other sources, Craig, Winston J., and Ann Reed Mangels. “Position of the American Dietetic
Association: vegetarian diets.” Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 109.7 (2009): 1266-1282. At
http://www.eatrightpro.org/resource/practice/position-and-practice-papers/position-papers/vegetarian-diets A
growing body of scientific evidence suggests that meat and other animal products are detrimental to an individual’s
health and longevity.

14
great deal of pleasure from watching dogs or chickens fight. Why is this? Part of the answer, it

seems, is that humans can engage in all-sorts of leisure and recreational activities. We don't

"need" to watch dogs or chickens fight to live an enjoyable or flourishing life. And choosing to

do so means sacrificing an animals most basic interests - in not suffering, and in continued

existence - for pleasure. If we recognize this, however, it is hard to see how the same does not

also apply to animals humans raise and kill for food. It is true that many humans get pleasure

from eating animal products, but it is unclear why, morally, this ought to matter. Humans can get

pleasure in other ways, by eating plant-based foods, without causing serious harms to other

animals. As a result, an appeal to the pleasure humans get from eating meat and other animal

products fails to justify the serious harms we inflict on these animals.

If these harms cannot be justified, then, we believe, humans have an obligation not to

purchase or consume meat and other animal products. Purchasing and consuming these products

contributes to and financially supports these practices, which cause serious harm to other

animals. Once we recognize that these serious harms are not justified, we should withdraw our

support from them.

Objections to Veganism

There are many critical responses to moral arguments for veganism, including from people who

explicitly express concern for the environment, as well as others. Here we briefly reply to a few

common objections:

“Raising animals to eat them, and eating them, is natural, so it’s not wrong. It is part of

the natural order'”

15
 Reply: There’s nothing at all ‘natural’ about modern, mechanized industrial

animal farming and slaughter. And just because some action is ‘natural’, whatever

that might mean (the claim that something is ‘natural’ can have many different

meanings, as discussions about sexual ethics show), doesn’t make it morally

permissible. Acting violently or selfishly can be quite ‘natural’, but is often

wrong. Further, to claim that something is part of the natural order, in this context,

only tells us that human beings have historically chosen to hunt, raise, and kill

other animals. The mere fact that we have traditionally done something does not

show that it is morally justified.

“Animals eat other animals (and that’s not wrong). We are animals. So it’s not wrong for

us to eat animals.”

Replies: Chickens, pigs and cows don’t eat other animals. And unlike carnivorous

animals, like lions, we don’t have to eat meat. Further, unlike most animals, we

can think about the consequences of our actions and choose to cause less harm

when we can. Finally, just because animals do something doesn’t make it OK for

us to do it: e.g., some animals eat their babies, but it’d be wrong for us to:

animals’ behavior is often not a good model for our own.

“We are omnivores, so it is not wrong to eat meat.”

16
 Replies: The claim that humans are omnivores can be interpreted as the claim that

we can eat meat, or that we should eat meat. The first claim isn't controversial.

Biologically, humans are capable of eating and digesting meat. However, the

mere fact that humans can do this does not mean we are morally justified in doing

this. To defend this view requires reasons that would support raising and killing

animals for food.

“Animals have no rights, so it’s not wrong to eat them.”

Replies: Our argument makes no appeal to ‘animal rights.’ And it could be wrong

to harm animals even if they don’t have moral rights: not all moral theories or

moral explanations appeal to rights.

“Animals aren’t rational; they aren’t very smart; they don’t contribute to the betterment

of society, and so on, and so they are OK to eat or kill to improve the environment.”

Replies: Lots of human beings are like that, but they’d be wrong to kill and eat, or

to kill to help the environment. And don’t we have moral rights, ultimately,

simply, because we can be harmed, made worse off in profound ways, not

because of any advanced intellectual abilities we might have? If human beings

who lack these advanced intellectual abilities, and even the potential for them,

shouldn’t be killed and eaten, then basic moral rights can’t depend on those

17
 abilities: rather, they depend on something more basic, such as the capacity to be

harmed.

“All farming methods cause animal deaths, and all cause environmental harm. Therefore,

it’s not wrong to eat meat.

Reply: Driving cars causes deaths, but we should still try to drive more safely and

minimize deaths and injuries. Similar points apply to agriculture. People have

tried to calculate how many animals are killed by different agricultural methods

(these calculations are difficult and controversial) and have argued that, at least,

current patterns of animal agriculture certainly don’t minimize animal deaths or

harms to the environment. While some animals are killed in the fields when

producing grains and other vegetables, the evidence at this point suggests that

significantly fewer animals would be killed if humans only ate plants.

“My not eating meat won’t help animals, and it won’t help the environment either, since I

am just one individual in a big, big world. Therefore, what I do doesn’t make a difference

and so I am obligated to do what I want, including eating meat.”

Reply: Unfortunately, few of us can change the entire world by our own efforts:

what we do, as individuals, doesn’t seem to make the differences we’d like to see

happen. This is especially true about the environment: one individual recycling,

one individual using less energy, one individual taking the train instead of driving,

18
 and so on doesn’t make much of a difference. But these actions, along with not

eating meat, do make some difference (that world is different when we do them),

and it often encourages others to make those differences also. And, unlike many

other actions, we must eat, so we might as well eat in ways that are more likely to

make a positive difference, and surely eating meat can’t be that.

These are just a few common objections to arguments for veganism. Many more are discussed

elsewhere.16 Recall, however, that we argued above that environmental concerns do not, in

themselves, require veganism, but that serious moral concern for animals themselves does. And

approaching the vegan ideal has major environmental benefits also, as we reviewed above.

IV. Conclusion: Animals and the Environment 

In conclusion, we have argued that environmental concerns ground an individual's obligation to

significantly reduce the amount of meat and animal products they purchase and consume. These

concerns, however, cannot ground an obligation to eat a strict vegetarian or vegan diet.

Nevertheless, we believe most of us ought to eat a vegan diet. It is just that the grounding of this

obligation stems from the ways raising and killing animals for food harms the animals

themselves, not from broader environmental concerns. 

Dividing our argument in this way, we hope, provides a clearer sense of the basis of our

moral obligations. However, it would be a mistake to read our argument and conclude from it

that concerns about harms to animals and their well-being are entirely separate from

“environmental concerns.” While common, we think this way of understanding “the

environment” and how animals relate to it is problematic and needs revision. 

16
See, e.g., our “An Argument for Veganism,” in

19
 Unfortunately, all too often concerns for the welfare and well-being of nonhuman

animals are seen as distinct from, and sometimes competing with, concern for “the

environment.” Perhaps nowhere is this better seen than in discussions about two oxen, Bill and

Lou, at Green Mountain College in Vermont.17 Bill and Lou were oxen who worked for 10 years

plowing fields for Green Mountain College on the school’s farm. After Lou sustained an injury

and was unable to work, the college decided to slaughter the animals, in the name of

sustainability. This produced significant backlash and led to national attention. Despite the fact

that animal sanctuaries offered to take care of Bill and Lou, Lou was killed by Green Mountain

College (although not served in the cafeteria) and it appears that Bill was killed not that long

after. 

From the perspective of Green Mountain College, killing Lou and Bill was in the interest

of environmental sustainability. The animals were viewed as resources: no longer able to work,

their bodies represented 2,000 pounds of meat that would otherwise “go to waste.” Killing and

using these animals, they thought, promoted the goal of benefiting the environment. 

Killing Bill and Lou was morally indefensible for reasons we have already seeing. But

beyond this, the understanding of how animals, like Bill and Lou, relate to “the environment”

that this action represent is rather odd and incredibly anthropocentric. Very few of us think, for

example, that it would be a good idea to try and wipe out all of humanity to benefit “the

environment.” Yet this is despite the fact that humans are, by far, the most environmentally

destructive species on earth! We don’t think humans are resources who exist to benefit “the

environment.” Rather, we recognize that humans are inhabitants of the environment, and

17
Jess Bidgood, “A Casualty Amid Battle to Save College Oxen, New York Times, November 13, 2012, on page
A12 of the New York edition. http://nyti.ms/1Jg5HNF

20
that our concern for the well-being of human beings explains, in part, our concern for broader

environmental concerns. 

Yet, when we recognize this, we ought to recognize that other animals, too, are

inhabitants of the environment, sentient beings for whom the health of our shared environment

matters. The environment is not for humans alone. And concern for the well-being of other, non-

human animals - and a recognition that we should work to avoid harming other animals

whenever possible - should not be seen as competing with, or running against, concern for the

environment. Animals, like us, are part of the environment that we care about. 

In light of this, our moral argument for veganism - which appeals to obligations humans

have not to harm other animals and to avoid supporting practices that seriously harm animals -

shouldn’t be seen as competing with, or as alien to, environmental concerns. Instead, concern for

the well-being of other animals offers a way for us to imagine a much broader, and we believe

more inspiring, conception of “the environment.” For animals are residents of this earth just as

much as other human beings. Our concern for the state of our shared environment, then, ought to

include a concern for how this affects the lives and well-being of other animals, with whom we

share this planet. 

21