Abstract
Like many arguments about consumer ethics, and like almost all pro-vegan
arguments, this argument begins with an empirical premise about the harm
footprint of actions of a particular type-namely, the action-type of eating animal products-and then draws the (implicit) conclusion that it would be wrong
to perform actions of that type because of that harm footprint. However, even if
we grant that the empirical premise is correct (as we should), there are a number
of important objections to such footprint-based arguments.