Should we use environmentalist and anthropocentric arguments to defend animals?

When people try to convince others to stop using animal products, they use different types of arguments. Some focus directly on animal wellbeing, while others talk about how animal farming affects the environment or human health. But which approach works better? Let’s explore this important question.

Different ways to argue against animal use

People often make these kinds of arguments:

• “Animal farming is bad for the environment”
• “Eating meat isn’t healthy for humans”
• “Factory farms are gross and unsanitary”
• “Being cruel to animals might lead to being cruel to humans”
• “Growing animal feed could instead feed hungry people”

Why do people use these arguments

Many animal advocates believe:

1. It doesn’t matter why people stop using animal products – the animals benefit either way
2. People care more about themselves and the environment than about animals, so these arguments might work better

But is this really the best strategy?

The arguments we use matter more than you might think. Here’s why.

Long-term impact

Think about it like this: When someone stops eating meat because it’s unhealthy, they might switch to “humane” meat if they find it’s healthier. But if they stop because they care about animals, they’re more likely to stay committed and influence others to care too.

The bigger picture

It’s not just about stopping animal farming. Animals face other sources of suffering and risks. We also need to think about:

• Wild animals suffering in nature and how we can help them¹
• Future technologies that might affect animals²
• New forms of farming that could hurt even more animals

The risk of wrong messages

Using environmental or human-centered – anthropocentric – arguments might have unexpected negative effects:

1. The “animals don’t matter” message

When we only talk about human benefits or environmental impact, we accidentally suggest that animal suffering isn’t important on its own.

2. The “sustainable suffering” problem

If we focus only on environmental impact, people might support “eco-friendly” farming that’s actually worse for animals, like:

• Cramming animals into smaller spaces to use less land
• Switching to farming smaller animals like fishes or insects (which means more animals die)

Important questions to think about

• If someone stops eating meat for health reasons, will they care more about animals later?
• Could environmental arguments lead to solutions that hurt more animals?
• What happens when environmental goals conflict with goals to protect sentient beings?

Conclusion

While it might seem smart to use arguments that people relate to more easily, this approach could slow down real progress for animals. The most effective long-term strategy might be to focus on what matters most: the animals themselves.

Think about it

The values we spread today will shape how future generations treat animals. Which message do we want to send – that animals matter only when it benefits humans, or that they matter because they can suffer and feel just like we do?

Remember: The reasons why people change their behavior are often just as important as the changes themselves – because those reasons shape how they’ll think and act in the future, and how they’ll influence others.

---

Further readings

Animal Ethics (2020) Introduction to wild animal suffering: A guide to the issues, Oakland: Animal Ethics [accessed on 22 February 2025].

Baumann, T. (2017a) “S-risks: An introduction”, Center for Reducing Suffering [accessed on 11 February 2025].

Baumann, T. (2022) Avoiding the worst, Colville: Center for Reducing Suffering [accessed on 18 February 2025].

Horta, O. (2022) Making a stand for animals, Oxford: Routledge.

Tomasik, B. (2019 [2011]) “Risks of astronomical future suffering”, Center on Long-Term Risk, 02 Jul 2019 [accessed on 3 February 2025].

---

Notes