MasalaLabs is a famous food blogger and author who made a post and wrote comments on ethics of Veganism. Below is the detailed debunk of the same. Link to original post >>> Link
In addition to the post, he wrote somethings in comment section of this post and some other posts around that time.
I have quoted the part relevant for the context.
Statements #1
"All large scale food production is ethically problematic. The ethics of consumption....Consumers vary by economic class & culture. Your one tiny minor choice of not eating X or Y. We all need to try and improve the way food is grown, raised, processed & distributed. Eat whatever you want and can afford"
Strawman Fallacy - argument based on misrepresentation of Veganism
- Masala has conveniently reduced the issue of Animal Rights (which Vegans raised) to that of food production and consumption. It reduces Veganism to consumer activity which makes it easier for Masala to argue more effectively against a Strawman version. Misrepresentation like this allows Masala to dodge the ethical questions posed by Vegan Ethics (asked later in this post)
Note to Masala
- Veganism is a social justice movement that aims to reject the commodity status of animals that leads to their use and abuse. Arguing against Veganism is arguing for animal abuse.
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement #2
"All large scale food production is ethically problematic"
Fallacy of the Gray
- Masala has tactfully deployed the fallacy of the gray by saying that the whole food system is problematic and hence implying that everything is unethical. This denies the possibility of reducing suffering especially by erasing the individuality of the animals who are abused and killed. This is not to say that Vegans do not recognise the exploitative and intricate food system that we have. Despite our best efforts, some things are regrettably out of our control. But that doesn’t mean we can’t make ANY ETHICAL choices. It is also an appeal to Nirvana fallacy as Masala is implying ‘we can’t make ANY ethical choices so may as well support the very worst even if those could be avoided’
Note to Masala
- Irrespective of human struggles, animals can be spared from Speciesist Human Dominance. Nothing gives us the Right to pay for acts of violence done on non-consenting animals.
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement #3
"Ranting selectively about "cruelty" towards animals while being glibly ignorant of the scale of human suffering required to grow rice or sugarcane is hypocritical"
Relative Privation/Appeal to other problems/Whataboutery
- Masala resorts to fallacy of relative privation by dismissing the main argument raised by Vegans Animal Rights. Such fallacious arguments can then be used to invalidate any social issue by saying there are more complex and pressing issues at hand. This is a classic whataboutery tactic often used by non vegans in an attempt to escape the individual ownership of participating in acts of violence against animals.
Cherry Picking/Deceptive Sharing
- In order to argue against Veganism, Masala highlights human suffering in growing rice and sugarcane but has conveniently ignored the human suffering in the animal agriculture industry - meat, beef, leather etc. Masala’s Speciesist, dominant, human supremacist worldview is evident in the double quotes used with the word ‘cruelty’ when referring to animals. However, if they are deflecting the issue based on human suffering then at least be consistent and honest with that.
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement #4
"You do your bit. Others will do what they can"
Thought Terminating Cliche
- A thought terminating cliche is usage of simple phrases like “You do you”, “It is my personal choice” etc by the arguer to limit themselves from mental rigor of critical thinking. It is a classic response to combat cognitive dissonance. Masala doesn’t want to be held accountable for his “personal choices”. Forget about being held accountable, they want Animal Rights activists to be cancelled in the name of “virtue signalling”
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement #5
"You can't force others to focus on your priorities."
Note to Masala
- No one is asking you to change your "priorities" of social issues. We are asking you to stop being an animal abuser. Being Vegan is a neutral position in this issue.
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement #6
"Focus your ire on industrial animal husbandry, not random strangers on the internet. We all need to try and do better to make food systems sustainable and ethical. We all need to try and improve the way food is grown, raised, processed & distributed."
Displacement of Responsibility
- It is a psychological phenomenon where individuals tend to feel less accountable for their actions and displace it on others. Masala is deploying this typical tactic to create a false illusion that they are not directly responsible for slitting of animal's throats but rather it is the "Industry", "Food System" etc. While the industrial animal husbandry and corporations that profit from animal use are reprehensible it does not mean individuals are not responsible for their actions. They still hold harmful speciesist attitudes and prejudices towards other animals and seek to justify animal exploitation and commodification. Constant use of the term "We" to "make food systems" better is Diffusion of Responsibility. Collective action provides anonymity, which allows weakening of moral control.
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Statements #7
Absent Referent
- Masala talks about food, dairy, eggs, systems, protein and what not but misses to talk about murder of animals. Behind every meal of meat, dairy, egg there is blood. There was an individual animal who was brutally murdered. That act of violence on that individual animal is replaced with euphemistic labels like protein, meat, dairy etc. This is the "absent referent" The absent referent functions to cloak the violence inherent to meat eating, to protect the conscience of the meat eater and render the idea of individual animals as immaterial to anyone’s selfish desires. The function of absent referent is to create a barrier between the food on our plate and the idea that this food was a living sentient being who was killed for our "personal choice"
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement #8
"People who actually grow/raise our food are largely exploited workers at the bottom of the social pyramid (they are all meat eating, traditionally FWIW)"
The most disingenuous argument against Veganism
- It is unfortunate that not everyone has access to plant-based food, at the moment, for various reasons like living in barren lands. However, people like Masala, based on my educated guess of their IG account, do have access to traditional Indian plant-based food. How can someone else’s constraint become a common justifier for them to contribute to abuse and murder? This is just a deceitful attempt to hide behind the helplessness of the less privileged. It shows apathy for both animals and the humans who have genuine accessibility issues.
—---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement #9
"Your one tiny minor choice of not eating X or Y doesn't give you a pedestal to lecture others about ethics. Your pedestal is still standing in the knee deep manure of a paddy field that replaced a rain forest."
Ad Hominem (Tu Quoque), Appeal to Hypocrisy, "You Too" Fallacy
- Masala is calling out Vegans that a plant-based diet, under the current system, is also unethical. As it is the result of human suffering and incidental animal suffering. Vegans are aware of the problems associated with the complex food system in the current capitalistic system. But how does that invalidate the issue of Animal Rights? Our endeavours to improve the food system and make it more sustainable and ethical can continue while people like Masala give up their supremacist Speciesist world view. But instead they want to uphold their dominance over animals and want vegans to remain silent. The intention behind these arguments is to promote a sense of apathy towards animals by portraying it as a lost cause.
Read debunk of Vegan arguments here
Comments