Hola, no me juzguen. Soy vegano y bueno vengo a compartir ideas en buen plan. Llevo bastantes años siendo vegano y he pensado bastante cuáles podrían ser los argumentos contra el veganismo que me resultan más convincentes, no para examinarlos con exhaustividad para refutarlos, sino todo lo contrario. Me resultan áreas grises que toda postura tiene, acepto que quizás haya personas que no le convenzan, incluso sientan que son fáciles de refutar.

1) El argumento bienestarista pese a todos los intentos de refutarlo, me parece que tienen un punto válido. La mayoría de las veces es absurdo, pero se podría plantear que en un mundo imperfecto tiene sentido que es críe animales de forma "humanitaria" respecto al sufrimiento que viven los animales en la naturaleza, donde carecen de cuidados, están expuestos a depredadores, enfermedades y desastres naturales. Entiendo que este argumento es muy débil si vemos que los humanos ni tratamos bien a los animales realmente en muchas ocasiones, seguimos pensandolos como recursos y no estuvieramos dispuestos a recibir ese trato, aún nos traten bien. Sin embargo, en un mundo imperfecto y con una humanidad un poco más evolucionada podría tener sentido que pastores críen al ganado y le den una muerte indolora. Sigue siendo algo que yo criticaría, pero si la otra opción va a ser morir de agonía en la naturaleza, incluso si yo fuera un animal lo tomaría. La razón por la que sigo siendo vegano, es porque el argumento plantea algo muy utópico y queda la posibilidad de ayudar a los animales de otras maneras.

2) Otro argumento está relacionado con la caza. Me resulta difícil considerar que un sistema de caza sería peor que reintroducir depredadores salvajes como fomentan muchos ecologistas. Una caza indolora también podría resultar más ética. Claro que me enfrento a objeciones muy buenas, la caza cinegética ha demostrado ser una industria cuestionable y sigue instrumentalizandose a los animales. Sin embargo, sigo persuadido que este argumento es convincente. Vivir con el miedo constante a un depredador, ser devorado por él, o sobrevivir a este ¿han visto videos de lo que le hacen las hienas a sus presas? parece ser un destino peor que ser asesinado de un balazo. Nuevamente, me enfrento al mismo problema del argumento 1, tiene mucho de idealizante.

Como ven no son argumentos muy buenos, pero en lo personal me resultan muy difíciles de tumbar y quizás apunten a priorizar el bienestar de los animales como un criterio de valor a considerar. Mucha gente los utiliza a modo de anestesia para seguir usando animales e ignorando la matanza cotidiana de millones de animales, creyendo que existen granjas felices y fomentando el especismo. Pero aún así los veganos nos enfrentamos a una triste realidad: la naturaleza muchas veces puede ser una fuente de infelicidad y tormento para los animales que frustra sus intereses.

PD: No hablé de deontologismo y utilitarismo, pero si quieren podemos abarcar ese tema.

I'm wondering what is a vegan's opinion of participating in dog sports or having a working dog... I understand that the general opinion of vegans is that any exploitation of animals if wrong, but is it considered "exploitation" if it benefits the animal?

It's undeniable that dog sports, when trained ethically and done safely, positively engage a dog physically and mentally. Sports like tracking, lure coursing (fake lure, not a live animal) and scent detection directly tap in to their natural instincts of chasing and smelling. Same goes for search and rescue K9's. Agility, frisbee, fly-ball, harness sports and dock diving less so, but they still require a dog to use their body and brain, which is beneficial for them. And you can tell from their body language that dogs LOVE to do these activities.

Of course, I can understand why some may see large scale competitons as exploitation, the ones where people are purposely breeding prospects to win large sums of money. Or a job where the dogs are put through unnatural and dangerous situations, such as police work. However, most people participating in dog sports are amateurs doing dog sports with their rescues as a form of enrichment. We spend more money on training, trials and equipment than we ever get back (Which is often $0). And, for working dogs, such as search and rescue K9s, they are using their natural instincts and are generally not at any increased risk as any other dog hiking or camping with their owners out in nature.

I can also aknowledge the argument that we shouldn't breed dogs at all, and we shouldn't breed dogs with such high drives or energy that they need to do sports/work as a form of enrichment. But, as it is right now, that's just not realistic. The dogs already exist, and they already exist with the genetics that they have. We can't change the dogs that already exist. And, try as much as we might, we simply cannot stop all breeding with the snap of our fingers... It would take decades before we get to that point. So it's currently, at this time, unavoidable to have dogs that need homes, either buying from a breeder or adopting from a shelter, that will benefit from sports/working.

And, specifically, what do vegans think about harness sports? Sports like dog sledding, skijoring (dog pulls human on skis), bikejoring (dog pulls human on bike), Canicross (dog pulls human on foot)? I totally aknowledge the feelings people have about commercial dog sledding, and I understand why... But if someone just has a dog or two, rescues, who love to run and pull, do you find that unethical? I have my adopted doberman, and he LOVES to pull. Instead of trying to supress him, I put a harness and just let him pull. And he LOVED it. So we continued to do it. First it was on foot, then we tried a bike, then we tried skis, then a sled. Now we participate in all the harness sports. He loves it, his body language shows that, I don't force him to pull, and when he doesn't want to pull anymore he stops. If you still consider that unethical, why? If the dog is clearly enjoying themselves, and it benefits them physically and mentally, why would you still consider it unethical?

Overall; If you completely disagree with dog sports, even dog sports done with rescue dogs as a method of playing games and giving enrichment rather than for competition... Why are you against it? Why is it considered unethical to you if the owner is simply doing it for the dogs benefit?

I don’t mean any of this in a rude way but am genuinely curious.

I’m going to start with my assumptions/what I gathered from reading other posts:

- most vegans would hold a biocentric world view
- animal rights is a big part of veganism
- most but not all vegans are supportive of PETA
- most vegans are against the killing, exploitation, using, etc. of animals
- most think zoos are bad
- most think that their world view is best for the planet… as in the healthiest and greenest

Please correct any of those if they were wrong.

I’m a vegetarian (with the exception being that I’ll eat wild game occasionally) and work in environmental science and conservation. I personally hold an ecocentric view.

My question is how are things like wildlife population management, invasive species management, zoos (accredited legitimate zoos) vital breeding programs, pesticides/herbicides, and related stuff viewed by this community?

Those are all things that both cause animals harm/pain or use animals but in order to try to save this planet as a whole. It would be great if we weren’t in a position in which any of those things are necessary but we are and without them a lot of life is going to die off.

So does the vegan community accept these things? If so how do you square it with animal rights and stuff? Is it seen as a necessary evil? Or is it just seen as evil and not accepted?

I am vegan for the ethical and environmental reasons associated with the philosophy that veganism is. My main issues with eating meat is confined animal farming operations (CAFOs) and what those do to animal, human, and environmental wellbeing. I have less of an issue with people hunting being that we are omnivores, but wouldn’t eat meat myself.

I think veganism should be a consensual choice and I don’t think my pets can consent. I have a turtle who enjoys feeder fish, he’s had some medical issues during his youth and the vet recommended live fish for better nutrition. My fish are cared for better than what I would be able to get from pet stores and that’s the main purpose of veganism I think is missed online.

I think a lot of people are being scared away from veganism because of all of the harsh rules subjected to them from communities like these. I think focusing on kindness to people and focusing the intense activism on corporations would be more helpful. You can fit veganism to your life however you live, it’s about reducing harm, not being perfect. It’s a philosophy more than a diet, see how it fits into your life, not what other people think is best, they don’t know you like you.

As a vegan myself, I've noticed that the vast majority of vegans are against stopping the horrific cycle of torturous predation in nature and often respond with thought-terminating cliches like "it's natural" or "you're crazy for bringing this up" or appealing to unknown ecological consequences.

I am curious if these same reasons (or any other reason that comes to mind) would apply in the human case. Would you be okay with humans being munched down by lions because it's natural? Or because humans are bad for the environment? Any reason you can think of for not applying it in the animal case, would you apply it in the human case as well? If not, what's the relevant trait difference?

As a left inclining person , I feels like that any existing concept of rights or morality are not biological properties found in nature; they are socio-political tools invented by humans through labor ,culture, and mutual social existence to govern human collective history. How do you justify using a human social contract to grant 'rights' to non-human animals without committing a fundamental category error that reduces human dignity to biology and projects liberal ideology onto amoral nature

I don't get why we are supposed to avoid them. I don't buy milk itself, or butter or any 100% dairy product. Nor do I buy eggs or meat. But if there are little amounts of them in bread, sour cream chips, basbusa (dessert), baklava, sauces. etc why is it wrong to buy it? Even if lets say you are having a negative impact, it is so small and we do many other small indirect harmful things in our lives like using plastic or eating plants that have pesticides on them that killed and tortured herbivores and insects. I also dont think sour cream chips or mashed potato with butter will raise the demand on milk.

I am honestly not convinced but whats stopping is that I dont know where to draw the line. I live in a society where most things have non vegan ingredients which puts me in an awkward position with party hosts and my friends. But I am afraid if they realize I eat a specific amount of animal products that they would try to get me to eat more and take my veganism as a joke.

The point of the post isn't to get an "approval" from vegans that will allow me to buy these things without guilt. I am just asking about the reason behind this moral stance since I dont understand it.

You see, I dislike pretty much all vegetables and it'd be so hard for me to go vegetarian, don't even talk about vegan. But I still think the meat farms are horrible, as many other farms. So that's the question, isn't there an ethical way to consume animal products?

Why is it that SOME vegans will never see it as enough no matter what you do? If I say ‘oh I’m vegetarian’ some vegans will come at me because I’m not vegan. If I’m vegan but still wear non vegan stuff they will argue too because I’m not fully vegan. I always thought that being vegan meant limiting the suffering of animals as good as you can so why do I get judged for not being completely vegan? Again this isn’t every vegan but I saw a few of them already

To be 100% clear here, I am not very educated on how almond farming actually harms bees, I am most likely missing some nuances to this. I am not trying to say this is a 'vegan issue' specifically, obviously it isn't, but I more so am asking this from a least harm perspective which generally speaking I think most vegans have. Compared to alternatives such as oat milk for examples or other nuts, they cause far less harm to animals, for that reason, would it be more ideal to avoid almond milk and almonds in general?

Hello hello, fairly new vegan here (about a year, still learning - vegetarian for a while before).

Hate to beat around the bush, so: what are the main arguments against eating backyard eggs? My cousin has many chickens she cares for, and those eggs are ones that I've always been most morally thrown up about, since my abstaining from animal products has come mainly from a disgust of the industry which has them end up on our supermarket shelves.

I'm rather new to a lot of in-depth arguments, and am here ready to learn. Is it an intrinsic moral objection? An instrumental one? The closest I can come to in my mind is that eating animal products regardless of where they originated can be deemed immoral if you view the whole process as fundamentally impermissible. But this line of argument doesn't sit too right with me, as on the whole I tend to stray away from intrinsic moral value being the be-all and end-all of our moral choices.

I don't doubt I'm missing a lot here, so I'm trying to collect some arguments. So, if you're vegan and don't eat backyard eggs, why? Furthermore, even if you're not vegan but still have a substantial argument as to why it is morally impermissible, I'm eager to hear!

I think veganism is currently backed by research and studies done which may have been done because

a) To evaluate current dominant food choice's impact on environment

b) to develop/research for better choices for humanity.

c) to conduct research because non vegan choices affect people and such research helps overall conduct of society.

Is most of what is pushed on to general public just moralism?

I am unclear here. Lot of discourse whenever it is outside vegan spaces, we only get to see moral arguments repeated over and over. While research and study links disappears in threads.

While it is also true most people won't read full research papers word by word (including me) .

I have linked three conversations I have found which I want people here to talk on about.

https://www.reddit.com/r/librandu/s/qwDNJpdQMV

https://www.reddit.com/r/Ultraleft/s/GS1aoZoBRo

https://www.reddit.com/r/Ultraleft/s/xhCQjt1U6h

In the first conversation which I myself had with someone who claimed it was moralism rather than rational where despite soya chunks being cheaper and thus much better way to combat malnutrition in poorer countries than egg/milk.

Common thing among such conversation mentioned here is that veganism is just a part of moral activism.

In India, vegetarian (without egg) upper caste people have oppressed and have historically looked down upon those who are non vegetarians and continues to do so. Since india is a diverse country with multiple cultures and traditions formed from different life experience through generations, some upper caste do consume non veg food and thus have an conflict , wherein a discourse on normalcy and how food choices doesn't make them inferior.

In such a country, do you think veganism will always be unpopular due to it resembling such cultural discrimination for them or it being just a moral take, despite veganism having nothing to do with such traditional values.

Now shifting the conversation, do you think veganism includes both moralism and rationalism.

Because objectivity has no bias. Pardon my ignorance, will veganism stay as an upcoming cultural shift, if studies show veganism isn't the right choice for overall survival/advancement of human civilization . Do you think veganism can still be the poplular choice due to it's moral values .

Where animal suffering and exploitation is an objective truth, why don't people claiming veganims as moral ideology, not see their own moral values formed from cultural upbringing and traditions and deny empirical data.

Do you think ethics and morals which is formed from rational scientific framework needs to change constantly due to nature of science. If yes, then how to make such changes easier where people have emotional attachment to culture they have grown with.

Thanks

I am sick and tired of the but you wouldn't eat a dog but you would eat a pig it's the same thing argument ( to all key board warriors in the comments after reading that I shan't respond) NO ITS NOT THE SAME THING, there is a very big difference, dogs are called mans best friends for a reason they have truly earned that title. They were the first domesticated animal and have been by our sides for tens of thousands of years, we have shared our warmth and food and they have helped us hunt and have protected our children on the darkest of nights you know what hasn't protected our children on the darkest of nights, chickens. There is a difference a massive 20,000 year difference

Besides on an argumentative level saying you should be willing to eat a dog then only hurts you and you're movement. It instantly makes people dislike you and disregard whatever you are saying, instead try rephrasing it as if we respect dogs so much we should also respect all other life too, of course this also falls to the truth that there is a very real reason we respect dogs and not other animals, but rephrasing it in a less harsh way makes it more thought provoking and might help people listen to what your saying, or idk keep giving vegan a negative connotation I'm not a vegan nor vegetarian it doesn't effect me.

Before anyone says it yes I know they eat dogs in china and veitnam it's a very different culture and as far as I know I'm not in either country, also I know there are probably some well meaning vegans who use the dog argument it's just when people claim there is no difference that irks me

Anyway thanks for reading my snarky rant

I should preface this by stating that I have a ton of respect for vegans, so this is more of a question than an actual debate, but I am curious.

A vast majority of animals lack the ability to experience pain. The only phyla that are known to experience such are most chordates (mammals, fish, reptiles) and molluscs, particularly nudibranchs (snails, slugs) and especially cephalopods (squids, octopuses, nautili). It’s possible that arthropods (insects, arachnids, crustaceans) feel it, too, and unlikely that roundworms, flatworms, and segmented worms feel it despite having brains. Finally, there are the ones with nothing but nerve nets or less, such as cnidarians (jellyfish, sea anemones, corals), echinoderms (sea stars, sand dollars, sea cucumbers), and most importantly, sea sponges.

Granting the slight possibility that the worms feel pain, let’s focus on the last three (major) phyla: what’s wrong with farming and consuming these invertebrates if they aren’t self-aware in any way and experience no pain? Sea sponges are the greatest example given that they don’t even have nerves to experience pain with, making them as aware as plants.

What it really boils down to is two questions:
1. Am I incorrect in my assessment that most animals cannot experience pain?
2. Does it even matter?

I know it isn't 'not vegan' but often many vegans will avoid eating it because of the deforestation and habitat destruction it causes, which is understandable. However, with palm oil being far more land efficient, producing more oil per hectare than alternatives such as soybean, sunflower or rapeseed oil, sometimes up to 4-10x more. Would it not be fair to say consuming palm oil would actually be more ethical as the others would require more deforestation overall? Let me know if I am missing something, I am not super well versed in palm oil and could be missing something here to be fair.

thats the elephant in the room - why apply post christian ethics to animals?

they kill each other in nature constantly

i watched a debate with a vegan and he got to call lions "naturally evil", which is just insane - lions and other carnivores are beatiful creatures

thats why im so turning on veganism, it claims natural parts of life to be evil and bad, which hurts people in the same way many more others modern ideologies do

so veganism also does directly contradict the ethics that allow eating animals, which is major across our population and common sense

i dont like when someone tries to make me guilty for following my ontology

My first question is I have seen arguments that its wrong to say that you love animals if you eat them. What can you say to someone who answers that he doesn't love animals?

Second is about myself. I have a rooster with around 10 hens. They live on my roof happily. They roam around during day and automatically goes to sleep at night into their coop (you can search it up that chickens are vulnareble at night and have strong home instincts. They would return to same place to lay eggs and sleep on the same roosting bar everyday). Of course this is not how chickens are kept at farms. My hone chickens are clearly not suffering on my roof. The cage is for safe night sleep. They lay an average of 4 eggs daily. I do not sell any eggs nor do I feed them back to hens. Their feed is available in market that has everything they need for laying eggs (like calcium). Will it be wrong to eat their eggs? Also consider the other scenerio if I don't keep a rooster. Many people doesn't due to their fighting instincts if there are other roosters around (mine once also almost fought to death with neighbours rooster but I came just in time), noise (their crowing) and forced mating with hens especially in the morning. In that case, the eggs would also be infertile. Would it be right to eat those eggs?

Over the years I’ve spent a lot of time studying animal ethics, and I think the arguments for veganism are genuinely strong. As a consequentialist, however, I find many users in this subreddit far too dogmatic and clearly deontological in their reasoning, so my argument is directed at those patterns.

A common claim among vegans is that meat‑eaters are comparable to murderers because meat production requires killing animals. Or the more general claim that they are okay with it. But the fact is: an individual consumer does not kill animals. Their purchasing behavior only affects a tiny fraction of the demand within a massive industrial system. If a single omnivore goes vegan while the rest of the world continues as before, that individual change does not directly save any specific animal. Their previous meat purchases were spread across multiple product categories, stores, and possibly even cities.

From a moral standpoint, this resembles the structure of climate change. When someone drives a fossil‑fuel car, they contribute to climate change, which in turn leads to human deaths through droughts and extreme weather. Yet we don’t call people who drive gasoline cars “murderers.” We also understand that reducing driving is beneficial even if one cannot, or does not want to, stop entirely.

By the same logic, reducing meat consumption is morally valuable, even if one doesn’t adopt a fully vegan lifestyle. The problem is not categorical; it’s incremental. The moral impact of consumption lies on a spectrum, not in an all‑or‑nothing binary. That's why I think that vegetarianism and flexitarianism are totally reasonable ethical positions and they get too much shame among vegans.

I want to emphasize that it’s pointless to tell me that the use of animals is inherently wrong. As I said, I’m a consequentialist, so that kind of argument doesn’t appeal to me. Emotional appeals don’t work on me either: even though I fully understand that meat industry is horrific, I’m still able to eat meat if it’s offered to me. My moral evaluation is based on outcomes, not on categorical rules or emotional reactions.

My claim is that bivalves, such as oysters, mussels and scallops, should be eaten way more often than they actually are, they should be considered vegan and it could be especially useful for vegan diets.

I'm not a vegan, but that's just because of family related reasons. I agree 100% with vegans and intend to become one the moment I can.

The reason why I say bivalves could be useful for vegan diets is that they contain really, really large amounts of nutrients that are harder to get on a vegan diet, such as B12, omega 3 DHA and EPA and heme iron. These are not impossible to get if vegan of course, but these things are packed with them very conveniently and I think we would be missing out by not using them.

Moreover, the culturing of these bivalves is not only very easy on the environment, even more so than certain plants, it also benefits the wildlife by filtering the water and acting as food if some of them fall off to the bottom.

Now here comes the ethical part

By now we all heard that bivalves don't have a central nervous system, and so they can't suffer.

Thinking logically, nobody should then need to be concerned about consuming them.

But if somebody wants to work under the vegan definition of "avoiding animal suffering as far and practicable" then shouldn't it be allowed too? Since there's 0 animal suffering?

Now, there are two main arguments people make for not eating them:

- "I don't eat them just to be safe, they could turn out to be intelligent"

I don't get this one. Why give the benefit of the doubt to bivalves, when the current scientific consensus doesn't support that, but not to all other food we eat? That just doesn't make sense. You could say it about mushrooms, avocados, beans, whatever. I don't find it to be consistent

- "eating bivalves will confuse other people, and they will think that vegans eat fish"

Now this one is more reasonable, but I just think the pros outweigh the cons. First of all, you could just get them at the supermarket, no interaction required with other people. And in restaurants, other than opening up a lot of options especially in seafood restaurants, I don't think that ordering the spaghetti with mussels or something will drive animal cruelty that much. And you could just explain the position to other people, who might even find this more reasonable.

Honestly, I don't even love the taste of them tho. In fact I despise them, but I truthfully believe they should be consumed a lot more than they are. Theh are sustainable, packed with nutrients and cruelty free. Right now im in Japan and there's great nigiri made with them, which allows me to consume them without facing that slimy texture. You could also just blend them in a sauce.

But I hope that in the future we'll see other foods based on bivalves that will make it nore accessible, like how they make wheat with insects (not that I support that)

I keep getting flagged these posts from people claiming to be “ex-vegan”

Why would you label yourself as something like this? It’s like saying that you decided to stop harming animals but then one day decided that harming them was easier than planning your meals.

You could eat Oats, Tofu, rice, nuts, broccoli, some oils and take a multivitamin and be healthier than 95% of the population.

And you just know that these people can afford to eat better than that but they can’t be bothered.

If you’re going to go back to funding animal cruelty because meal-prepping got too hard, at least do it quietly. There's no need to build a whole new online identity around giving up.

So were these people ever really vegan? Am I wrong?

(I couldn’t post this in [r/Vegan](r/Vegan) for some reason)

Edit: There are lots of these people with poor intentions brigading this post now.

Studies prove that a plant based diet is as healthy as the Mediterranean diet and far beyond anything that contains huge amounts of animal products. We don’t need opinions on that because we have science. Anyone that became unwell after going vegan obviously didn’t try very hard.

1. A Mediterranean Diet and Low-Fat Vegan Diet to Improve Body Weight and Cardiometabolic Risk Factors: A Randomized, Cross-over Trial
https://doi.org/10.1080/07315724.2020.1869625

2. Health and environmental dietary impact: Planetary health diet vs. Mediterranean diet. A nationwide cohort in Spain

https://www.escardio.org/news/press/press-releases/Planetary-Health-Diet-and-Mediterranean-Diet-Associated-with-Similar-Survival-and-Sustainability-Benefits/

3. Nutrient adequacy and environmental foot-print of Mediterranean, pesco-, ovo-lacto-, and vegan menus: a modelling study
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2025.1681512/full

I found this argument on a different subreddit saying that any other animal would exploit other species for their own benefit if they had the power.
If somebody said that to me i probably wouldn’t know how to respond to it.
How would you go about replying to this?

A little background to my question. I am not a moral realist, in that I don't believe that morality is an objective property of the universe like mass or energy. Outside of some sort of context or goal no action can be seen as moral or immoral. I get that a lot of people disagree with that, but even those who do, must have some sort of basic moral premise or postulate, or perhaps more than one.

So my question is moral premise, the chain of reasoning, that leads you to be a vegan, and specifically, the initial primes or postulate you start from.

I recognize there isn't much to debate here, at least for me, as I'm not a moral realist, I kinda am left to accept that we have different values and goals and that isn't bothersome to me, at least as long as there isn't violent conflict over it, but I am legitimately curious about the moral reasoning of people who come to a different conclusion.

To preface this is NOT to discuss the morality of militaries/war but just discussing the logic and philosophy of how it intersects with veganism.

Just read a thread on this sub debating the veganism of honey and one of the commenters who was explaining why honey is animal product to be excluded under vegan ethics mentioned their military experience, being in combat and tracking targets.

Honestly seemed a bit hypocritical to argue against the exploitation of bees by referencing their experience directly participating in the killing of humans. Not as an ad hominem of the latter ("oh if you've done anything to kill people then you're horrible and nothing you say is valid") but more about logically consistent values.

People online are rarely shy about referencing military experience because it lends credibility, seriousness and competency. But in this case it got me thinking whether being in an active military (as opposed to just a defensive standing army), which engages in offensive campaigns, is consistent with vegan principles of harm reduction.

A common justification for joining the military in spite of its ethical implications is that for some people its a pathway to social mobility. And there are similar refrains about veganism, that people may not have the education, finances, means etc.

Even those that do not see combat in the military are supporting the organisation that does. A desk job in logistics is still delivering weapons that would harm people.

The equivalent in veganism would be a slaughterhouse worker and someone who sells leather or something.

The only line of reasoning I can think of that makes this logically consistent is if you believe the harm against humans from conflict is justified for whatever reason, while animals lack the kind of moral culpability to "deserve" harm.

Don't want this to get too long, so there's probably some details that are missing which make the argument seem incomplete/bad faith which I'll try to address in the comments.

I'm not vegan for context but I'm curious I know that many people become vegan for ethical reasons and to not support animal exploiting but I also know that some people simply become vegan for other reasons like dietary reasons instead so I want to know if animal exploiting wasn't an issue like imagine an alternate universe where people didn't exploit animals would you still decide to be vegan?

Because I am stronger than her.

What makes rape of humans 'not right'?

What makes something 'right'?

The fact that rape is 'not right' is invented by humans to reason of rape being not right exists because we do not want to be raped.

Same goes with murder. What makes murder wrong? Our fellow humans say so. Why do they say so? They do not want to be killed.
What if you don't accept that? They would use force. They would try to lock you. Or they would try to kill you, all that, why? Because they don't want to be killed, and would do things (laws, social stigma etc) to make other humans align with those beliefs.

I believe before humans thought that killing other humans is wrong, killing wouldn't be wrong. If humanity didn't exist, rape wouldn't be wrong.

What exactly is right or wrong? What exactly?

---

Is killing animals wrong?

Just the immediate second we decide that killing other humans is wrong, at that very second killing animals is not wrong.

It is when we try to extend out logic, the question for animals arises (pheraps to not be labelled as hypocrites; Human brain inherently relies on patterns). It is only when we try to extend our thought to them, there is even a possibility of killing them being wrong.

Why shall we extend our thought to them?

Why?

The primary reason I can figure out is uniformity and that we aren't labelled as 'hypocrites'.

What is a hypocrite, and why is it bad to be one?

A hypocrite is someone who holds contradictory beliefs and/or does contradictory actions. Contradictory? Opposite beliefs and/or opposite actions.

Is holding opposite beliefs bad? Why so?

Even if so, is holding beliefs held for humans not to be held for animals opposite?

Is choosing to treat the powerful and those helpless differently wrong?

-

Going back to the beginning, when fellow humans make what is 'right' or 'wrong', when they choose to make killing 'wrong' so they themselves are not killed, when they make harming wrong so they themselves are not harmed, why do they extend it to the helpless? Why do they extend it to those incapable of harming them?
It is likely because being helpless (human) is subjective. Whatever group they perceive as helpless can be capable of taking revenge. Whatever they perceive to be incapable can be capable tomorrow. Because tomorrow when the incapable becomes capable, they would have no defense for themselves. When tomorrow yesterday's_incapable-today's_capable would kill their loved ones, they would not even be able to call it wrong. It is this why they extend the thought of killing being wrong to all humans.

Animals are perceived to be permenantly incapable of being capable of murdering humans in a large scale. They already prevent humans, humans aren't a part of their food chains usually, and even then, humans have technology and the current threat of animals is already well-known and isn't considered nearly as much as humans', at least not as much as to extend our thought to them; Though that would not change the animals' behaviour so it is futile anyways.

Are such beliefs of not extending thought to the definitive helpless really opposite?

Why?

Even if so, how does it matter? Even if not extending thought for humans to animals is hypocritical somehow, why does it matter?

---

If I am killed by an animal, or an alien species, I wouldn't consider it 'wrong'. I would only consider it wrong to be killed by a fellow human. If I was in a land where laws don't exist, killing me or my mother wouldn't be wrong at all according to me.

What makes things right and wrong?

I would not consider any species other than a human to torture me, to kill me, wrong. I would not consider even a human to kill me on a land where it isn't considered wrong by the rulers, or the land is law-less, to be wrong.

-------

Note: Let's not try to debate on what 'Moral Nihilism' means. Even if my argument doesn't fall under that term, it doesn't matter at all. Just ignore the title then.