For me it is a largely a lack of willpower. I'm dependent on my parents and eat what they eat, and though I could simply make my own meals every day, I genuinely don't have the energy for that. Certainly not an excuse, but that's why.
It's also worth mentioning I don't think death is intrinsically bad; I think if animals live healthy lives and are slaughtered humanely no harm is done, or at least, any potential cost will be outweighed by the benefits. Unfortunately, most meat comes from factory farms, so eating meat is probably unethical is most scenarios, since culinary pleasure most likely does not occur on a scale that outweighs the essential torture that factory farmed animals go through.
That said, I don't really understand some of the reasons given in this thread. Sure, when you're at the store deciding whether to buy meat or not, the animal you're potentially going to eat is already dead, but every person who reduces their meat consumption has an impact, however minuscule, on the level of meat production in the world, and those minuscule impacts add up. Animal suffering and suffering in the world, in general, exists on a continuum. It's obvious that going vegan/eating ethically sourced meat won't lead to the total elimination of suffering but it's equally obvious that it would reduce it to some measure, which is why some people bother at all.
I'm not trying to be sanctimonious; I can't, because as mentioned, I do eat meat. It just bothers me that so many arguments against veganism seem so illogical. I think vegans generally have the moral high ground and it's annoyed me in the past to see them being nutpicked or memed (especially when the punchline is just something about how great bacon tastes). I think it's at least partially because of the cognitive dissonance it creates, especially for people who think life has
intrinsic value, like most outside of this site.
Other points:
I find it hard to believe that the existence of crop deaths implies that vegans are implicitly hurting animals
more than meat-eaters, considering that both meat-eaters and livestock also eat said crops.
Not all animals are equal. Consider cows and chickens, for instance. Not only does the average chicken live in worse conditions than the average cow, but chickens are much smaller than cows. That is, some amount of cooked chicken is the result of more suffering than the same amount of cooked beef. For similar reasons, eating eggs causes more suffering than eating a similar amount of dairy. And as iterated before, considering animal suffering is a continuum, I think it makes sense to choose to eat meat that has suffered less, so to speak.
reducing-suffering.org
Since animal suffering exists on a continuum I also don't understand why eating meat is typically conceived of as a dichotomy; reducing one's meat consumption even by, say, 50%, would naturally have some impact.
I can certainly accept that for some people, it's simply not viable from a health point of view to cut out meat from one's diet. I do find it hard to believe that this applies to everyone considering the availability of vitamin supplements and other protein sources in most developed places and the fact that plenty of vegans do exist. But I'd stand to be corrected there.
Do vegans who have pets - like cats and dogs (and other animals that mainly eat meat) - think that the meat (the animals) that have to be slaughtered for the food of their pets don't have to suffer?
An answer like "cats and dogs can't be vegan by nature" isn't satisfying bc most of these animals are produced and raised to be sold to and kept by people.
I have heard vegans say that it's not ethical to
breed obligate carnivores (like cats) since this would lead to more livestock suffering as you say. I'm inclined to think similarly. But realistically, cats and dogs already exist—plenty of pets are rescues/adoptees—and
arguably unlike humans, they do need to eat meat (cats, certainly... I'm not so sure what the deal is with dogs).
