LessWrong essay argues veganism is virtuous, not obligatory

In a widely discussed essay on LessWrong, author Hide challenges the moral framework underpinning veganism by arguing that abstaining from animal products is a supererogatory act (virtuous but not required) rather than a moral obligation. The core argument rests on a distinction between obligatory and virtuous actions: what you must do versus what is good to do beyond duty. Hide posits that the factor determining obligation is the sacrifice imposed on the agent, not merely the harm caused. To illustrate, they compare Anne, who must charge a laptop to preserve irreplaceable family photos (causing environmental harm), with John, who charges an identical laptop for trivial entertainment. Both produce equal harm, but Anne has no obligation to abstain due to high personal sacrifice, while John likely does.

Applying this to veganism, Hide notes that every argument for veganism as an obligation also implies extreme obligations that even strict vegans fail to meet—such as avoiding all crop farming side effects that kill small creatures. The common vegan caveat “as far as is practicable” either permits omnivorous diets (if sacrifice is considered) or demands impossible extremes. The essay upfront acknowledges factory farming’s despicable nature, animal moral worth, and the environmental harms of animal agriculture, but maintains that consistency forces a supererogatory view. The author concludes that veganism is akin to building free houses for the homeless—laudable but not morally compulsory.