linguistic:voice_change, structural:expansion, stylistic:style_transfer, structural:summarization
Ethical veganism

Ethical veganism is based on opposition to speciesism, the assignment of value to individuals based on (animal) species membership alone. Divisions within animal rights theory include the utilitarian, protectionist approach, which pursues improved conditions for animals. It also pertains to the rights-based abolitionism, which seeks to end human ownership of non-humans. Abolitionists argue that protectionism serves only to make the public feel that animal use can be morally unproblematic (the "happy meat" position).

Donald Watson, co-founder of The Vegan Society, asked why he was an ethical vegan, replied, "If an open-minded, honest person pursues a course long enough, and listens to all the criticisms, and in one's own mind can satisfactorily meet all the criticisms against that idea, sooner or later one's resistance against what one sees as evil tradition has to be discarded." Of bloodsports, he has said that "to kill creatures for fun must be the very dregs" and that vivisection and animal experimentation "is probably the cruelest of all Man's attack on the rest of Creation." He has also said, " vegetarianism, whilst being a necessary stepping-stone between meat eating and veganism, is only a stepping stone."

Alex Hershaft, co-founder of the Farm Animal Rights Movement and Holocaust survivor, says he "was always bothered by the idea of hitting a beautiful, living, innocent animal over the head, cutting him up into pieces, then shoving the pieces into mouth" and that his experiences in the Nazi Holocaust allowed him "to empathize with the conditions of animals in factory farms, auction yards, and slaughterhouses" because he "knows firsthand what it's like to be treated like a worthless object." Several animal rights activists, including Isaac Bashevis Singer, Gary Yourofsky and Karen Davis, have compared the cruel treatment of animals in CAFOs and slaughterhouses to the Holocaust.

Law professor Gary Francione, an abolitionist, argues that all sentient beings should have the right not to be treated as property, and that veganism must be the baseline for anyone who believes that non-humans have intrinsic moral value. Philosopher Tom Regan, also a rights theorist, argues that animals possess value as "subjects-of-a-life", because they have beliefs, desires, memory and the ability to initiate action in pursuit of goals. The right of subjects-of-a-life not to be harmed can be overridden by other moral principles, but Regan argues that pleasure, convenience and the economic interests of farmers are not weighty enough. Philosopher Peter Singer, a protectionist and utilitarian, argues that there is no moral or logical justification for failing to count animal suffering as a consequence when making decisions, and that killing animals should be rejected unless necessary for survival. Despite this, he writes that "ethical thinking can be sensitive to circumstances" and that he is "not too concerned about trivial infractions".

An argument by Bruce Friedrich, also a protectionist, holds that strict veganism harms animals because it focuses on personal purity rather than encouraging people to give up whatever animal products they can. For Francione, this is similar to arguing that, because human-rights abuses can never be eliminated, we should not defend human rights in situations we control. By failing to ask a server whether something contains animal products, we reinforce that the moral rights of animals are a matter of convenience, he argues. He concludes from this that the protectionist position fails on its own consequentialist terms.

Philosopher Val Plumwood maintained that ethical veganism is "subtly human-centred ", an example of what she called "human/nature dualism", because it views humanity as separate from the rest of nature. Ethical vegans want to admit non-humans into the category that deserves special protection rather than recognize the "ecological embeddedness" of all. Plumwood wrote that animal food may be an "unnecessary evil" from the perspective of the consumer who "draws on the whole planet for nutritional needs"—and she strongly opposed factory farming—but for anyone relying on a much smaller ecosystem, it is very difficult or impossible to be vegan.

Bioethicist Ben Mepham, in his review of Francione and Garner 's book The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition or Regulation?, concludes, "if the aim of ethics is to choose the right, or best, course of action in specific circumstances 'all things considered', it is arguable that adherence to such an absolutist agenda is simplistic and open to serious self-contradictions. Or, as Farlie puts it, with characteristic panache: 'to conclude that veganism is the "only ethical response" is to take a big leap into a very muddy pond'." He cites as examples the adverse effects on animal wildlife derived from the agricultural practices necessary to sustain most vegan diets and the ethical contradiction of favoring the welfare of domesticated animals but not that of wild animals; the imbalance between the resources that are used to promote the welfare of animals as opposed to those destined to alleviate the suffering of the approximately one billion human beings who undergo malnutrition, abuse and exploitation; the focus on attitudes and conditions in Western developed countries, leaving out the rights and interests of societies whose economy, culture and, in some cases, survival rely on a symbiotic relationship with animals.

David Pearce, a transhumanist philosopher, has argued that humanity has a "hedonistic imperative" not merely to avoid cruelty to animals caused by humans but also to redesign the global ecosystem such that wild animal suffering in nature ceases to exist. In pursuit of abolishing suffering, Pearce promotes predation elimination among animals and the "cross-species global analogue of the welfare state". Fertility regulation could maintain herbivore populations at sustainable levels, "a more civilised and compassionate policy option than famine, predation, and disease". The increasing number of vegans and vegetarians in the transhumanism movement has been attributed in part to Pearce's influence.

A growing political philosophy that incorporates veganism as part of its revolutionary praxis is veganarchism, which seeks "total abolition" or " total liberation " for all animals, including humans. Veganarchists identify the state as unnecessary and harmful to animals, both human and non-human, and advocate for the adoption of veganism in a stateless society. The term was popularized in 1995 by Brian A. Dominick's pamphlet Animal Liberation and Social Revolution, described as "a vegan perspective on anarchism or an anarchist perspective on veganism".

Direct action is a common practice among veganarchists (and anarchists generally) with groups like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), the Animal Rights Militia (ARM), the Justice Department (JD) and Revolutionary Cells – Animal Liberation Brigade (RCALB) often engaging in such activities, sometimes criminally, to further their goals. Steven Best, animal rights activist and professor of philosophy at the University of Texas at El Paso, advocates this approach, and has been critical of vegan activists like Francione for supporting animal liberation but not total liberation, which would include not only opposition to "the property status of animals" but also "a serious critique of capitalism, the state, property relations, and commodification dynamics in general." In particular, he criticizes the focus on the simplistic and apolitical "Go Vegan" message directed mainly at wealthy Western audiences, while ignoring people of color, the working class and the poor, especially in the developing world, noting that "for every person who becomes vegan, a thousand flesh eaters arise in China, India and Indonesia." The "faith in the singular efficacy of conjectural education and moral persuasion," Best writes, is no substitute for "direct action, mass confrontation, civil disobedience, alliance politics, and struggle for radical change." Donald Watson has said he "respects the people enormously who do it, believing that it's the most direct and quick way to achieve their ends." Sociologist David Nibert of Wittenberg University posits that any movement towards global justice would necessitate not only the abolition of animal exploitation, particularly as a food source for humans, but also transitioning towards a socioeconomic alternative to the capitalist system, both of which dovetail into what he calls the animal–industrial complex.

Some vegans also embrace the philosophy of anti-natalism, as they see the two as complementary in terms of "harm reduction" to animals and the environment.

Vegan social psychologist Melanie Joy described the ideology in which people support the use and consumption of animal products as carnism, as a sort of opposite to veganism.