Thanks for summarizing this, Tobias (especially for those of us who don’t listen to podcasts :)). Your last point resonated most with me. Different approaches work with different audiences. I personally use both reducetarian and “go vegan” messages; it just depends on who I'm talking to. To me, what is truly pragmatic is exploring how to choose the right message for the right circumstances.
Interestingly, at a meeting with my local animal advocacy group this week (a very pragmatic group of vegans working mostly to lobby for animal protection legislation) one person brought up the idea of participating in a Cube of Truth activity. I had never heard of this before so now I’ll be especially interested in hearing about your experience with it.
I think you could do a Cube of Truth with a more pragmatic approach, since that's really about the conversation you have after people watch the video. That said, I always find the look of those cubes quite off-putting. I would _never_ approach a group of people who looked like that!
I've also wondered why they don't make it all a bit more approachable. Don't want to judge too fast as I assume they've experimented and thought about it a lot.
And yes, other groups, spinoffs, do more pragmatic conversations, from what i hear :)
I happened by a Cube of Truth today in Glasgow. I've been curious about whether I should try and engage in some activism for a while now and hoped I might get a better feel if I spoke to one of the people there. I didn't say I was vegan at the start. I got the feeling that she was sticking to a script in terms of what ground she covered, didn't listen to my views, was dismissive of vegetarians (after saying that supply and demand was important I asked what she thought of veggies, who presumably reduce the demand for flesh) and claimed that the Cube approach was very effective with "many people going vegan on the spot" after such an encounter. The only way to effect societal change being to expand the numbers of vegans so that their voices couldn't be drowned out. I felt I was talking to someone in a supremacy cult rather than a fellow vegan, and when I did tell her I was vegan she initially disbelieved me then wound up the conversation really quickly. So it wasn't an encounter that increased my enthusiasm for activism, which I'm a bit sad about.
I can see how that's not very encouraging. but i'd say keep your eyes open for anything that you can do for animals. Maybe next March you could attend the VARC conference in Manchester: https://www.varconference.com/ ?
One of the things that turned me vegan was reading the introduction to a vegan cookery book which, after outlining the ethical, environmental and health case for veganism ended with the following compelling sentence: "We are torturing animals and destroying the environment in order to poison ourselves." It seems obvious to me that combining all of the arguments is the most effective way to help people realise the absurdity of animal agriculture and the unanswerable case for plant-based eating/veganism, rather than relying upon ethnical appeal alone.
And we also need to support all of the other efforts that Tobias mentions.
Thanks for sharing this. Your insights are inspiring. I had the chance to attend to a conference of yours, years ago in Paris, organised by L214 association. I also believe pragmatism is paramount and that data/studies matter.
Going vegan right away seems too much of an ask for most people (of whom we usually know nothing of their personal circumstances). It seems unrealistic to expect such a big change, only based on an ethical conversation with an activist. Tackling speciesism one person at a time, on voluntary conversations, looks like trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon. The problem is systemic.
Telling the hard truth can work on some people, though (I've been touched when it happens). And this type of direct action suits some activists. Furthermore, showing the conditions of animals’ lives and deaths on the streets, even if most people look away, seems like a compelling reality check worth doing.
Hi Raimon, I have no doubt that telling the ahrd truth can work on some people. In fact, my assumption is that it should work better and better over time, as our environment becomes more facilitating and norms shift. It should already be easier and more productive than it was twenty years ago.
I think you and Paul actually have different goals. Paul kept saying his experience told him that his method worked the best, but best for what endpoint and by what metric? I got the impression that your goal is to end or at least reduce human-caused animal suffering, while Paul’s goal seems more focused on converting people to his side. If the goal is just to make more pure vegans, I can see why he would be against reductionism. However, if the goal is to actually help animals, I highly doubt AV’s methods are ideal. At minimum, it seems we shouldn’t put all our eggs in one basket (no pun intended).
I do think the goal is the same, in as far as that is ending animal exploitation (also suffering, in my case), but I think that Paul’s only metric to assess our progress towards that is the number vegans. In my case, I think that’s not the even the best metric, and like I said I think many reducers are a win and are creating large scale change faster than humans can because there’s more of them. I hope that changes that vegans will at some point be numerous enough to have a lot more impact still.
I genuinely thank you for existing. I love the idea Is finding more than one way to successfully get people to reduce or eliminate their animals consumption. Who is to say that there is still an approach that doesn’t exist yet that marries the accountability, welfarist, and a third thing that we don’t know yet that becomes the number one approach. We wouldn’t find it unless we are open to how we approach people. Thank you Tobias for what you do!
It was a hard interview to listen to. Paul seemed so unwilling or unable to understand other positions. That kind of closed-minded behavior is what I see in the abolitionists in my circle. No room for doubt or reflection. Maybe you need someone like that to do what he is doing though? I'm not sure.
yes, i think many people think that once they've gone vegan, the thinking is done. they were wrong before, now they are right. end of story. On the other hand, too much room for doubt also has its disadvantages (you don't want to be in MY head :) I'll write a piece on that some day.
Hi Tobias I admire both of you greatly but felt that Paul came across as somewhat condescending which is unhelpful. I think your points are extremely valid. Thank you for all you do.
Thanks, Tobias, for being concerned with actually making a real-world difference for animals, rather than just being "morally right." I've personally known thousands of individuals over the past 40 years who have been "morally right," yet the world is worse for non-human animals than ever before.
In conclusion, the animal question is a political issue. It therefore depends on the social, cultural, legal, and economic balances of our societies. Fundamentally, it cannot be imposed abruptly. This is why, by favoring gradual change, pragmatism works at the rhythm of political reality. Demanding an idealist-absolutist approach to the animal question is simply to ignore the academic distinction between moral philosophy and political science.
This error is so egregious that it has serious consequences. As I often say, just because the animal question is an urgent and serious issue does not mean that everyone can afford to address it without having acquired specialized skills. In all matters, it is healthy to occasionally question things we have long taken for granted, wrote Bertrand Russell. Idealism sometimes seems like a simplistic message that takes no account of the complexity of our realities, let alone the purpose of the struggle, namely the abolition of speciesism.
I would not be complete without telling you that idealism often rhymes with dogmatism, sectarianism, and now misanthropy. A whole series of pitfalls that could prove terribly harmful to the animal cause. In the absence of concrete, tangible, real, and usable results, idealism turns into animalism and sometimes begins to sink. Out of despair and often out of powerlessness to achieve real change for other animals, discourse becomes more radical, simplistic shortcuts abound, and hatred of others, especially humans, is never far away. Some people come to animalism (which I distinguish from anti-speciesism) more out of hatred for human beings than out of love for animals. This immoral drift is often part of an exacerbated refusal of any intersectional solidarity or a marked rejection of human rights. A rejection assumed and displayed, as if speciesism changed victims to denigrate certain human beings rather than other animals. If veganism can accommodate this moral rout, this is not the case for anti-speciesism, intersectional by definition (Humans are animals) and if idealism truly believes that it will obtain the abolition of speciesism with its 1% of vegans at war against the rest of social struggles, it is even more naive than usual. Achieving systemic and political change without solidarity with all the discriminations that stem from speciesism (such as racism, sexism, ableism, etc.) is a heresy that pushes vegan ideology beyond any reasonable rationality. Listening to certain idealistic discourses, dare I say that we are not very far from it? We hear words that say, "Humans are the worst species on earth, humans are murderers, human rights are the main obstacle, we should not complain about being raped when we are not vegan, etc." To believe for a single moment that these misanthropic discourses will generate broad social support that will bring about a change in the political system in favor of animals is madness. Antispeciesism rejects any form of segregation of sentient beings.
Should we then ask ourselves what real goals the idealists are pursuing? Is it really animal liberation? Or, on the contrary, the creation of an island where vegans will live together with this sole compensation, a ersatz success, very far from the abolition of speciesism and animal liberation?
One cannot win a political struggle against reality, and even less so against humankind, the ultimate voter, need we remind you?
That being said, it would be truly unfair to completely condemn the idealistic approach of "Go vegan" and deny it any usefulness. This simplified approach to the animal crisis is part of a moral dimension, a philosophical dimension that is more of an individual one. It can indeed help a person adopt behavior that aligns with their deepest values, if both they and the person themselves have the courage to listen, understand, admit, and modify their behavior without resorting to a whole series of strategies to avoid questioning themselves, and ultimately maintain this decision over the long term. The idealistic approach is therefore very well suited to individual change, provided the person is receptive. However, in a political and systemic dimension, historical reality has proven to us since the beginnings of humanity that this approach has already failed to overthrow speciesism. The essential goal for the Animal Cause is therefore beyond the reach of idealism.
thank you very much for your extensive feedback. there's many interesting ideas here. I don't have the time now but hope to be able to respond to some things at a later moment! :)
I listened to the whole discussion and certainly don't regret it :)
I wonder if, even within a pragmatist approach, the underlying ethical principle (i.e. “animals aren't there for us to use - regardless of how we use them”) could still be emphasized a bit more, rather than altogether ignored, as it seems to be the case in most of the “welfarist” messaging.
@Tobias Leenaert are there specific situations/audiences where you think a reductionist message could be accompanied by a somehow stronger ethical reminder, to avoid diluting it too much?
I think one can easily say something like “x is wrong, i understand it’s difficult to go cold turkey, though i think you ultimately should, so start with this or that, as a first step”?
Hello Tobias! Thank you so much for this debate with PB, for this valuable article you just wrote as a follow-up, and for all the relevant resources you offer us.
I took the time to follow this debate with interest, to read all the many comments posted on the various pages, and especially to reread your book for the third time, a book that I consider one of the most useful for advancing the animal cause in this world. Questions of strategy are often complex, and I therefore favor deep analysis and slow opinion.
I must admit that I was truly impressed by your control and composure in the face of PB. This debate was no easy feat, and your open-mindedness, your patience, and your calmness truly reflect a form of saintliness. You were faithful to your rhetoric and your strategy. Hats off to you!
First of all, I'd like to say that I was surprised that PB agreed to a debate with you without knowing your thoughts in their entirety (i.e., without having read your book). Published in 2017, translated into 14 languages, sold thousands of copies, and recommended by the most relevant authorities in the animal cause, your work is considered a masterpiece in the fight to abolish speciesism in our civilization. As director of AV, it's very paradoxical to hear PB so unashamedly admit to having no knowledge of it. It's quite obvious that your thoughts are complex, documented, informed, and substantiated, and the least we can expect from a leading figure in animal rights movement who wants to discuss speciesism with you is to have taken a serious look at it, quod non.
I also noted, to my great surprise, that PB allowed himself to label you as "a man of data and statistics," and this on several occasions. He even said, "Since I know that is the language you speak." Essentializing or labeling an idea or concept is often driven by the desire to reduce its scope; essentializing a person seems to me a highly dubious intellectual endeavor. No one can be reduced to a single facet. People who know and follow you are well aware of what you've been doing for animal rights for almost 30 years in your daily life. Seeing you as "a man of data and statistics" is yet another strange way of respecting you.
At the opposite end of this spectrum, I note that PB explicitly refers to his lifelong friend GY as the one who convinced him to become an activist 13 years ago. GY returned to action during AV's last campaign in Cologne after a hiatus of several years. On AV's website, GY is presented as the GOAT (Greatest of All the Time). PB worships him and spoke of him again in your debate as being "the most influential activist we have on the planet." Just that! To my knowledge, GY has written nothing and has not carried out any political action that has contributed in any way to changing our system of animal exploitation during his lifetime. He is currently banned from entering the USA and Canada. I imagine that you are not unaware that GY has made for years and still makes questionable remarks today about non-vegans, women, Palestinians, humanity in general, and even carnivorous animals... which reflect a vision of the human race that is, to say the least, misanthropic, to say the least. His remarks have caused a lot of division among activists and cast a veil of questions over the real ethos of AV and are still the source of great tension. Many activists have therefore opted for another sun. I think this is information that should not be overlooked when talking to PB or when you possibly appear with AV.
I now come to the heart of the debate, which didn't really surprise me. I was a little disappointed that the "Pragmatism vs. Absolutism" controversy wasn't better anchored from the start in a paradigmatic vision. The idealist or absolutist approach talks to us about veganism, while the pragmatic approach, which I would readily call political, talks to us about anti-speciesism. You repeat this several times in your book: "a vegan world is not the goal in itself, just as veganism is not an end in itself, but a means to obtain what we want" (p. 41, French version). Of course, what we want and what other animals want more than anything in the world is not veganism but rather the total end of animal exploitation, which is not at all the same goal and even less what does not mobilize the same means of action. This total end can be achieved by granting non-human legal personhood to other animals, guaranteeing them essential positive and negative rights (Donaldson and Kymlicka).
Veganism, as defined by the Watsons in 1944, is a philosophy and way of life that seeks to exclude, as far as possible, all forms of exploitation and cruelty toward animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose. According to a more recent definition, veganism can be understood as "a way of life that consists of not producing, purchasing, and using animal products" (François Jaquet and Malou Amselek, Faut-il être végane? 2025). According to François Jaquet, the ethics of veganism is the philosophical study of the moral questions raised by veganism (p. 39). Veganism is a moral question that therefore falls under the umbrella of moral philosophy, an academic discipline that studies moral judgments and seeks to answer questions about what we should do and why, by analyzing the nature of the norms, values, and duties that govern human behavior. In short, it analyzes human actions in terms of good and evil, asking what is right and what is good.
Today, from this epistemic perspective, a vast majority of philosophers, ethicists, and even legal scholars conclude that speciesism is immoral, indefensible, and must be abolished (see the Montreal and Toulon Declarations in particular). Indeed, as soon as our civilization has the possibility of living comfortably and healthily without harming beings considered by science to be sentient, it must morally refrain from doing so. There is no other choice, no middle ground in morality. Therefore, the idealist-absolutist approach of "Go vegan" is a direct consequence of the conclusions of moral philosophy. It is therefore not surprising that some activists consider that no other position is inconceivable in defending animal rights. The exploitation of animals is immoral, and therefore one must be vegan. PB himself says the same thing. When defining veganism, he states: "Veganism is a moral principle that humans should not exploit other animals for their own benefit."
Today, less than 1% of the population of industrialized countries is vegan, nearly 8 out of 10 people say it is very unlikely they will ever completely give up meat (Faunalytics, 2007), we have never killed so many non-human animals and the prospects for massacres are absolutely catastrophic given the westernization of Asia, the massive industrialization of production, the demographic increase in demand and genetic selection. According to the FAO, we will double the number of animals killed by 2050. Today, therefore, veganism has lost (Thomas Lepeltier, 2025). Every time this humanity produces 100 people, 98% will be omnivores and speciesists, 1.7% will be vegetarians and speciesists, only 0.3% will be vegan for considerations exclusively of animal welfare. This is the truth, it stings, it hits hard, but it’s the truth! No need to go looking for figures at AV. Welcome to the reality that PB doesn't want to hear about.
The idealistic-absolutist approach of "Go vegan" has no chance of reversing the trend and is therefore completely illusory, not to say naive. This is why PB doesn't like objective data, statistics, and especially concrete results. This scientific denial is very fashionable these days, isn't it? The lack of real control over the effectiveness of the idealistic approach is an essential element of its survival. It's what makes the model plausible, but no sane person can ignore that it leads to nothing. How many activists? How many people have actually gone vegan? Very few in reality! And for how long? Today, I would argue without the slightest hesitation that this simplistic approach is even the best ally of agribusiness and states, since it in no way highlights the responsibilities of speciesist ideology. While the idealist castigates the consumer, the agribusiness industry kills ever more animals in complete peace and quiet, with little or no concern itself (L214), and this is all the less true since the cultural system that supports speciesism emerges intact.
Far from these illusions, anti-speciesism, just like the pragmatic approach you advocate, is embedded in the political dimension it should never have left. Anti-speciesism is a political struggle; it is an ideology that demands legal status for non-human animals and which results in the abolition of all forms of legal discrimination. I noted in your debate that you mentioned the intrinsically systemic dimension of speciesist ideology 7 times. PB is almost silent on this subject... A staggering silence. It's edifying!
Today, the vast majority of authors, philosophers, and jurists are surprised by the lack of human and material resources invested in the systemic fight (Sarah Zanaz, Axel Playoust-Braure, Marie-Claude Marsolier, Florence Burgat, Jean-Pierre Marguenaud, François Jacquet, etc.). Sarah Zanaz also defines speciesism as a "system of exploitation based on the species." This system of exploitation produces the speciesist ideology, which is supported by political, legal, cultural, and economic institutions. In other words, speciesism is based much more on a civilizational system that discriminates against and exploits the rights of other animals than on the individual responsibility of the consumer subject. Indeed, while philosophically speaking, the immorality of the act of omnivorism is beyond doubt, its imputation in terms of the individual responsibility of the subject is entirely questionable. The idealist approach also lacks the intellectual honesty to respond pertinently to the precise question of the real responsibility of the subject anchored in his alienating system (Anah Arendt, The Totalitarian System).
Since speciesism is an ideological system anchored in our civilization, the idealist approach is illusory. Unlike the systemic approach, it will be incapable of producing massive, real, and effective changes for animals. In fact, the exact opposite is happening before our eyes. Idealism gives free rein to agribusinesses. On the other hand, systemic changes, i.e., even minimal political ones, are likely to have massive, real consequences on the number of animals killed. History often shows us that human beings adapt much more easily and quickly to systemic changes when they are imposed on them by a change in legislation than if they believe that a change in ethics will lead to systemic change. Idealism completely ignores the influence of behavior on ethical evolution and seriously overestimates the consequences of ethical change on systemic evolution.
Political science is viscerally pragmatic because it must ensure the social, political, cultural, and economic sustainability of a state, a population, an economic and social fabrics, and a civilization. No systemic change can happen overnight. All political development is profoundly incremental. This is why pragmatism, in its incremental dimension, is attentive to the society in which it exists; it therefore moves to the rhythm of politics.
This was such a thought provoking piece, thank you. I have myself struggled with striking the balance when communicating my thoughts relating to veganism and speciesism to others critical of my lifestyle, and over the years have learnt that the approach really depends on your audience. There’s also the saying that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar - but of course this takes time and effort. Thank you for putting in that time and effort!
You may say the words you believe will effectively stop the killing of innocents - we all should. In my heart are the words of truth not to use the words of my mouth to promote evil. Others use this motto saying ‘it is just words then.. I’ll do what I like!’ but in one’s heart the words affect our own actions.
One can do what one likes but also saying just kill less is an advertisement used by the meat industry
Thanks for summarizing this, Tobias (especially for those of us who don’t listen to podcasts :)). Your last point resonated most with me. Different approaches work with different audiences. I personally use both reducetarian and “go vegan” messages; it just depends on who I'm talking to. To me, what is truly pragmatic is exploring how to choose the right message for the right circumstances.
Interestingly, at a meeting with my local animal advocacy group this week (a very pragmatic group of vegans working mostly to lobby for animal protection legislation) one person brought up the idea of participating in a Cube of Truth activity. I had never heard of this before so now I’ll be especially interested in hearing about your experience with it.
Yes, I always say flexibility is the principle that trumps all others. In a way pragmatism encompasses all approaches.
I think you could do a Cube of Truth with a more pragmatic approach, since that's really about the conversation you have after people watch the video. That said, I always find the look of those cubes quite off-putting. I would _never_ approach a group of people who looked like that!
I've also wondered why they don't make it all a bit more approachable. Don't want to judge too fast as I assume they've experimented and thought about it a lot.
And yes, other groups, spinoffs, do more pragmatic conversations, from what i hear :)
I happened by a Cube of Truth today in Glasgow. I've been curious about whether I should try and engage in some activism for a while now and hoped I might get a better feel if I spoke to one of the people there. I didn't say I was vegan at the start. I got the feeling that she was sticking to a script in terms of what ground she covered, didn't listen to my views, was dismissive of vegetarians (after saying that supply and demand was important I asked what she thought of veggies, who presumably reduce the demand for flesh) and claimed that the Cube approach was very effective with "many people going vegan on the spot" after such an encounter. The only way to effect societal change being to expand the numbers of vegans so that their voices couldn't be drowned out. I felt I was talking to someone in a supremacy cult rather than a fellow vegan, and when I did tell her I was vegan she initially disbelieved me then wound up the conversation really quickly. So it wasn't an encounter that increased my enthusiasm for activism, which I'm a bit sad about.
I can see how that's not very encouraging. but i'd say keep your eyes open for anything that you can do for animals. Maybe next March you could attend the VARC conference in Manchester: https://www.varconference.com/ ?
Thanks, will look into attending that.
Al
One of the things that turned me vegan was reading the introduction to a vegan cookery book which, after outlining the ethical, environmental and health case for veganism ended with the following compelling sentence: "We are torturing animals and destroying the environment in order to poison ourselves." It seems obvious to me that combining all of the arguments is the most effective way to help people realise the absurdity of animal agriculture and the unanswerable case for plant-based eating/veganism, rather than relying upon ethnical appeal alone.
And we also need to support all of the other efforts that Tobias mentions.
Thanks for sharing this. Your insights are inspiring. I had the chance to attend to a conference of yours, years ago in Paris, organised by L214 association. I also believe pragmatism is paramount and that data/studies matter.
Going vegan right away seems too much of an ask for most people (of whom we usually know nothing of their personal circumstances). It seems unrealistic to expect such a big change, only based on an ethical conversation with an activist. Tackling speciesism one person at a time, on voluntary conversations, looks like trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon. The problem is systemic.
Telling the hard truth can work on some people, though (I've been touched when it happens). And this type of direct action suits some activists. Furthermore, showing the conditions of animals’ lives and deaths on the streets, even if most people look away, seems like a compelling reality check worth doing.
Hi Raimon, I have no doubt that telling the ahrd truth can work on some people. In fact, my assumption is that it should work better and better over time, as our environment becomes more facilitating and norms shift. It should already be easier and more productive than it was twenty years ago.
I think you and Paul actually have different goals. Paul kept saying his experience told him that his method worked the best, but best for what endpoint and by what metric? I got the impression that your goal is to end or at least reduce human-caused animal suffering, while Paul’s goal seems more focused on converting people to his side. If the goal is just to make more pure vegans, I can see why he would be against reductionism. However, if the goal is to actually help animals, I highly doubt AV’s methods are ideal. At minimum, it seems we shouldn’t put all our eggs in one basket (no pun intended).
I do think the goal is the same, in as far as that is ending animal exploitation (also suffering, in my case), but I think that Paul’s only metric to assess our progress towards that is the number vegans. In my case, I think that’s not the even the best metric, and like I said I think many reducers are a win and are creating large scale change faster than humans can because there’s more of them. I hope that changes that vegans will at some point be numerous enough to have a lot more impact still.
I genuinely thank you for existing. I love the idea Is finding more than one way to successfully get people to reduce or eliminate their animals consumption. Who is to say that there is still an approach that doesn’t exist yet that marries the accountability, welfarist, and a third thing that we don’t know yet that becomes the number one approach. We wouldn’t find it unless we are open to how we approach people. Thank you Tobias for what you do!
thanks Daniel, i agree :-)
It was a hard interview to listen to. Paul seemed so unwilling or unable to understand other positions. That kind of closed-minded behavior is what I see in the abolitionists in my circle. No room for doubt or reflection. Maybe you need someone like that to do what he is doing though? I'm not sure.
yes, i think many people think that once they've gone vegan, the thinking is done. they were wrong before, now they are right. end of story. On the other hand, too much room for doubt also has its disadvantages (you don't want to be in MY head :) I'll write a piece on that some day.
Hi Tobias I admire both of you greatly but felt that Paul came across as somewhat condescending which is unhelpful. I think your points are extremely valid. Thank you for all you do.
thank you Katia :-)
Thanks again for coming on, I’m looking forward to the follow-up!
Thanks, Tobias, for being concerned with actually making a real-world difference for animals, rather than just being "morally right." I've personally known thousands of individuals over the past 40 years who have been "morally right," yet the world is worse for non-human animals than ever before.
https://www.mattball.org/2025/07/i-am-to-blame-not-happy-post-but-still.html
thanks Matt.
the thing is that the other faction will blame this on people like me :)
Of course. They should blame me, as per the title of the link I left.
In conclusion, the animal question is a political issue. It therefore depends on the social, cultural, legal, and economic balances of our societies. Fundamentally, it cannot be imposed abruptly. This is why, by favoring gradual change, pragmatism works at the rhythm of political reality. Demanding an idealist-absolutist approach to the animal question is simply to ignore the academic distinction between moral philosophy and political science.
This error is so egregious that it has serious consequences. As I often say, just because the animal question is an urgent and serious issue does not mean that everyone can afford to address it without having acquired specialized skills. In all matters, it is healthy to occasionally question things we have long taken for granted, wrote Bertrand Russell. Idealism sometimes seems like a simplistic message that takes no account of the complexity of our realities, let alone the purpose of the struggle, namely the abolition of speciesism.
I would not be complete without telling you that idealism often rhymes with dogmatism, sectarianism, and now misanthropy. A whole series of pitfalls that could prove terribly harmful to the animal cause. In the absence of concrete, tangible, real, and usable results, idealism turns into animalism and sometimes begins to sink. Out of despair and often out of powerlessness to achieve real change for other animals, discourse becomes more radical, simplistic shortcuts abound, and hatred of others, especially humans, is never far away. Some people come to animalism (which I distinguish from anti-speciesism) more out of hatred for human beings than out of love for animals. This immoral drift is often part of an exacerbated refusal of any intersectional solidarity or a marked rejection of human rights. A rejection assumed and displayed, as if speciesism changed victims to denigrate certain human beings rather than other animals. If veganism can accommodate this moral rout, this is not the case for anti-speciesism, intersectional by definition (Humans are animals) and if idealism truly believes that it will obtain the abolition of speciesism with its 1% of vegans at war against the rest of social struggles, it is even more naive than usual. Achieving systemic and political change without solidarity with all the discriminations that stem from speciesism (such as racism, sexism, ableism, etc.) is a heresy that pushes vegan ideology beyond any reasonable rationality. Listening to certain idealistic discourses, dare I say that we are not very far from it? We hear words that say, "Humans are the worst species on earth, humans are murderers, human rights are the main obstacle, we should not complain about being raped when we are not vegan, etc." To believe for a single moment that these misanthropic discourses will generate broad social support that will bring about a change in the political system in favor of animals is madness. Antispeciesism rejects any form of segregation of sentient beings.
Should we then ask ourselves what real goals the idealists are pursuing? Is it really animal liberation? Or, on the contrary, the creation of an island where vegans will live together with this sole compensation, a ersatz success, very far from the abolition of speciesism and animal liberation?
One cannot win a political struggle against reality, and even less so against humankind, the ultimate voter, need we remind you?
That being said, it would be truly unfair to completely condemn the idealistic approach of "Go vegan" and deny it any usefulness. This simplified approach to the animal crisis is part of a moral dimension, a philosophical dimension that is more of an individual one. It can indeed help a person adopt behavior that aligns with their deepest values, if both they and the person themselves have the courage to listen, understand, admit, and modify their behavior without resorting to a whole series of strategies to avoid questioning themselves, and ultimately maintain this decision over the long term. The idealistic approach is therefore very well suited to individual change, provided the person is receptive. However, in a political and systemic dimension, historical reality has proven to us since the beginnings of humanity that this approach has already failed to overthrow speciesism. The essential goal for the Animal Cause is therefore beyond the reach of idealism.
thank you very much for your extensive feedback. there's many interesting ideas here. I don't have the time now but hope to be able to respond to some things at a later moment! :)
I listened to the whole discussion and certainly don't regret it :)
I wonder if, even within a pragmatist approach, the underlying ethical principle (i.e. “animals aren't there for us to use - regardless of how we use them”) could still be emphasized a bit more, rather than altogether ignored, as it seems to be the case in most of the “welfarist” messaging.
@Tobias Leenaert are there specific situations/audiences where you think a reductionist message could be accompanied by a somehow stronger ethical reminder, to avoid diluting it too much?
I think one can easily say something like “x is wrong, i understand it’s difficult to go cold turkey, though i think you ultimately should, so start with this or that, as a first step”?
Hello Tobias! Thank you so much for this debate with PB, for this valuable article you just wrote as a follow-up, and for all the relevant resources you offer us.
I took the time to follow this debate with interest, to read all the many comments posted on the various pages, and especially to reread your book for the third time, a book that I consider one of the most useful for advancing the animal cause in this world. Questions of strategy are often complex, and I therefore favor deep analysis and slow opinion.
I must admit that I was truly impressed by your control and composure in the face of PB. This debate was no easy feat, and your open-mindedness, your patience, and your calmness truly reflect a form of saintliness. You were faithful to your rhetoric and your strategy. Hats off to you!
First of all, I'd like to say that I was surprised that PB agreed to a debate with you without knowing your thoughts in their entirety (i.e., without having read your book). Published in 2017, translated into 14 languages, sold thousands of copies, and recommended by the most relevant authorities in the animal cause, your work is considered a masterpiece in the fight to abolish speciesism in our civilization. As director of AV, it's very paradoxical to hear PB so unashamedly admit to having no knowledge of it. It's quite obvious that your thoughts are complex, documented, informed, and substantiated, and the least we can expect from a leading figure in animal rights movement who wants to discuss speciesism with you is to have taken a serious look at it, quod non.
I also noted, to my great surprise, that PB allowed himself to label you as "a man of data and statistics," and this on several occasions. He even said, "Since I know that is the language you speak." Essentializing or labeling an idea or concept is often driven by the desire to reduce its scope; essentializing a person seems to me a highly dubious intellectual endeavor. No one can be reduced to a single facet. People who know and follow you are well aware of what you've been doing for animal rights for almost 30 years in your daily life. Seeing you as "a man of data and statistics" is yet another strange way of respecting you.
At the opposite end of this spectrum, I note that PB explicitly refers to his lifelong friend GY as the one who convinced him to become an activist 13 years ago. GY returned to action during AV's last campaign in Cologne after a hiatus of several years. On AV's website, GY is presented as the GOAT (Greatest of All the Time). PB worships him and spoke of him again in your debate as being "the most influential activist we have on the planet." Just that! To my knowledge, GY has written nothing and has not carried out any political action that has contributed in any way to changing our system of animal exploitation during his lifetime. He is currently banned from entering the USA and Canada. I imagine that you are not unaware that GY has made for years and still makes questionable remarks today about non-vegans, women, Palestinians, humanity in general, and even carnivorous animals... which reflect a vision of the human race that is, to say the least, misanthropic, to say the least. His remarks have caused a lot of division among activists and cast a veil of questions over the real ethos of AV and are still the source of great tension. Many activists have therefore opted for another sun. I think this is information that should not be overlooked when talking to PB or when you possibly appear with AV.
I now come to the heart of the debate, which didn't really surprise me. I was a little disappointed that the "Pragmatism vs. Absolutism" controversy wasn't better anchored from the start in a paradigmatic vision. The idealist or absolutist approach talks to us about veganism, while the pragmatic approach, which I would readily call political, talks to us about anti-speciesism. You repeat this several times in your book: "a vegan world is not the goal in itself, just as veganism is not an end in itself, but a means to obtain what we want" (p. 41, French version). Of course, what we want and what other animals want more than anything in the world is not veganism but rather the total end of animal exploitation, which is not at all the same goal and even less what does not mobilize the same means of action. This total end can be achieved by granting non-human legal personhood to other animals, guaranteeing them essential positive and negative rights (Donaldson and Kymlicka).
Veganism, as defined by the Watsons in 1944, is a philosophy and way of life that seeks to exclude, as far as possible, all forms of exploitation and cruelty toward animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose. According to a more recent definition, veganism can be understood as "a way of life that consists of not producing, purchasing, and using animal products" (François Jaquet and Malou Amselek, Faut-il être végane? 2025). According to François Jaquet, the ethics of veganism is the philosophical study of the moral questions raised by veganism (p. 39). Veganism is a moral question that therefore falls under the umbrella of moral philosophy, an academic discipline that studies moral judgments and seeks to answer questions about what we should do and why, by analyzing the nature of the norms, values, and duties that govern human behavior. In short, it analyzes human actions in terms of good and evil, asking what is right and what is good.
Today, from this epistemic perspective, a vast majority of philosophers, ethicists, and even legal scholars conclude that speciesism is immoral, indefensible, and must be abolished (see the Montreal and Toulon Declarations in particular). Indeed, as soon as our civilization has the possibility of living comfortably and healthily without harming beings considered by science to be sentient, it must morally refrain from doing so. There is no other choice, no middle ground in morality. Therefore, the idealist-absolutist approach of "Go vegan" is a direct consequence of the conclusions of moral philosophy. It is therefore not surprising that some activists consider that no other position is inconceivable in defending animal rights. The exploitation of animals is immoral, and therefore one must be vegan. PB himself says the same thing. When defining veganism, he states: "Veganism is a moral principle that humans should not exploit other animals for their own benefit."
Today, less than 1% of the population of industrialized countries is vegan, nearly 8 out of 10 people say it is very unlikely they will ever completely give up meat (Faunalytics, 2007), we have never killed so many non-human animals and the prospects for massacres are absolutely catastrophic given the westernization of Asia, the massive industrialization of production, the demographic increase in demand and genetic selection. According to the FAO, we will double the number of animals killed by 2050. Today, therefore, veganism has lost (Thomas Lepeltier, 2025). Every time this humanity produces 100 people, 98% will be omnivores and speciesists, 1.7% will be vegetarians and speciesists, only 0.3% will be vegan for considerations exclusively of animal welfare. This is the truth, it stings, it hits hard, but it’s the truth! No need to go looking for figures at AV. Welcome to the reality that PB doesn't want to hear about.
The idealistic-absolutist approach of "Go vegan" has no chance of reversing the trend and is therefore completely illusory, not to say naive. This is why PB doesn't like objective data, statistics, and especially concrete results. This scientific denial is very fashionable these days, isn't it? The lack of real control over the effectiveness of the idealistic approach is an essential element of its survival. It's what makes the model plausible, but no sane person can ignore that it leads to nothing. How many activists? How many people have actually gone vegan? Very few in reality! And for how long? Today, I would argue without the slightest hesitation that this simplistic approach is even the best ally of agribusiness and states, since it in no way highlights the responsibilities of speciesist ideology. While the idealist castigates the consumer, the agribusiness industry kills ever more animals in complete peace and quiet, with little or no concern itself (L214), and this is all the less true since the cultural system that supports speciesism emerges intact.
Far from these illusions, anti-speciesism, just like the pragmatic approach you advocate, is embedded in the political dimension it should never have left. Anti-speciesism is a political struggle; it is an ideology that demands legal status for non-human animals and which results in the abolition of all forms of legal discrimination. I noted in your debate that you mentioned the intrinsically systemic dimension of speciesist ideology 7 times. PB is almost silent on this subject... A staggering silence. It's edifying!
Today, the vast majority of authors, philosophers, and jurists are surprised by the lack of human and material resources invested in the systemic fight (Sarah Zanaz, Axel Playoust-Braure, Marie-Claude Marsolier, Florence Burgat, Jean-Pierre Marguenaud, François Jacquet, etc.). Sarah Zanaz also defines speciesism as a "system of exploitation based on the species." This system of exploitation produces the speciesist ideology, which is supported by political, legal, cultural, and economic institutions. In other words, speciesism is based much more on a civilizational system that discriminates against and exploits the rights of other animals than on the individual responsibility of the consumer subject. Indeed, while philosophically speaking, the immorality of the act of omnivorism is beyond doubt, its imputation in terms of the individual responsibility of the subject is entirely questionable. The idealist approach also lacks the intellectual honesty to respond pertinently to the precise question of the real responsibility of the subject anchored in his alienating system (Anah Arendt, The Totalitarian System).
Since speciesism is an ideological system anchored in our civilization, the idealist approach is illusory. Unlike the systemic approach, it will be incapable of producing massive, real, and effective changes for animals. In fact, the exact opposite is happening before our eyes. Idealism gives free rein to agribusinesses. On the other hand, systemic changes, i.e., even minimal political ones, are likely to have massive, real consequences on the number of animals killed. History often shows us that human beings adapt much more easily and quickly to systemic changes when they are imposed on them by a change in legislation than if they believe that a change in ethics will lead to systemic change. Idealism completely ignores the influence of behavior on ethical evolution and seriously overestimates the consequences of ethical change on systemic evolution.
Political science is viscerally pragmatic because it must ensure the social, political, cultural, and economic sustainability of a state, a population, an economic and social fabrics, and a civilization. No systemic change can happen overnight. All political development is profoundly incremental. This is why pragmatism, in its incremental dimension, is attentive to the society in which it exists; it therefore moves to the rhythm of politics.
This was such a thought provoking piece, thank you. I have myself struggled with striking the balance when communicating my thoughts relating to veganism and speciesism to others critical of my lifestyle, and over the years have learnt that the approach really depends on your audience. There’s also the saying that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar - but of course this takes time and effort. Thank you for putting in that time and effort!
You may say the words you believe will effectively stop the killing of innocents - we all should. In my heart are the words of truth not to use the words of my mouth to promote evil. Others use this motto saying ‘it is just words then.. I’ll do what I like!’ but in one’s heart the words affect our own actions.
One can do what one likes but also saying just kill less is an advertisement used by the meat industry