The vegan's dilemma

A common and convincing argument for the moral requirement of veganism is based on the widespread, severe, and unnecessary harm done to animals, the environment, and humans by the practices of animal agriculture. If this harm footprint argument succeeds in showing that producing and consuming animal products is morally impermissible, then parallel harm footprint arguments show that a vast array of modern practices are impermissible. On this first horn of the dilemma, by engaging in these practices, vegans are living immorally by their own lights. This first horn can be avoided by assuming that morality requires not minimizing harm, but only keeping the harm of our actions within some budget. On the second horn, however, we recognize that there are many ways of keeping our harm footprints within budget other than through our dietary choices. On the second horn of the vegan's dilemma, therefore, veganism is not a moral requirement.

Originally Published at 10.1017/S0953820820000060



Work Title The vegan's dilemma
Open Access
  1. Donald W. Bruckner
License CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives)
Work Type Article
  1. Utilitas
Publication Date April 6, 2020
Publisher Identifier (DOI)
Deposited February 17, 2023




This resource is currently not in any collection.

Work History

Version 1

  • Created
  • Added The_Vegan_s_Dilemma_Final_for_Utilitas_accepted_manuscript_version.docx
  • Added Creator Donald W. Bruckner
  • Published
  • Updated Publication Date Show Changes
    Publication Date
    • 2020-09-01
    • 2020-04-06
  • Updated