Permissible Purchasing, Obligatory Abstention: The Strict Vegan Case against New Omnivorism

ABSTRACT Recent developments in consumer ethics have given rise to a new breed of animal protectionist: the new omnivore. These new wave animal protectionists claim that strict veganism is impermissible for the very reason that typically motivates strict veganism; that is, animal protectionism. To the strict vegan, such a position will seem highly implausible, for many who adopt strict vegan practices do so because of deeply held animal‐regarding convictions. Yet the new omnivore appeals to plausible common‐sense principles of harm to justify their claims. In this article I tackle the newest variant of this argument, that animal protectionists are required to abandon veganism, instead consuming a plethora of everyday animal‐based products that will otherwise go to waste, because the alternative (buying plant‐based products) involves harm to animals in arable agriculture. To do this I advance three central claims: (i) that a principle of new omnivorous ethical consumption is implausible when taken seriously, (ii) that non‐ideal circumstances mean that a plausible consumer ethic will standardly permit purchasing plant products, even when such purchases generate harms to animals, and (iii) that we have non‐trivial reasons, based in complicity, to not consume animal products, even if they will otherwise go to waste.