Proponents of the utilitarian animal welfare argument (AWA) for veganism maintain that it is reasonable to expect that adopting a vegan diet will decrease animal suffering. In this article I argue otherwise. I maintain that (a) there are plausible scenarios in which refraining from meat consumption will not decrease animal suffering; (b) the utilitarian AWA rests on a false dilemma; and (c) there are no reasonable grounds for the expectation that adopting a vegan diet will decrease animal suffering.

The article is divided into four sections. In the first, I set out the utilitarian AWA in its original form. I give some background and distinguish it from other related arguments. In the second, I discuss the causal impotence objection, a popular objection to the utilitarian AWA. I explain how the objection works by means of a conceptual distinction between consumers and producers. In the third, I explain how proponents of the utilitarian AWA respond to this objection. In particular, I set out in some detail what I call the expected utility response. In the fourth and final section, I use the three prior objections to explain why I do not find this response convincing.


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 161-176
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.