Open Access

Niklas Schickling

• Animal agriculture is responsible for at least 16.5% of global yearly CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) emissions (Twine 2021: 3) and thus partially causal for the corresponding climate change, and its disastrous consequences for millions (Romanello et al. 2023: 1-2). At the same time, animal agriculture restricts and damages the bodily autonomy of animals regularly (Hampton et al. 2021: 28) which could be unethical depending on the underlying ethical theory. The policy option of veganism by law is, nevertheless, rarely considered. The definitions of veganism range from an individual ethic of the abstention from consuming animal products to a political philosophy calling for the abolition of animal agriculture (Mancilla 2016: 1-3). Because veganism through the cessation of animal agriculture could be the policy solution to the aforementioned issues concerning the rights of present and future generations affected by climate change and the rights of animals, I explore arguments for and against the implementation of veganism by law. Although a veganized agriculture would provide 52% of the required emission reductions for the 2°C target of the Paris climate accord (Eisen and Brown 2022: 6), and could allow for greater animal welfare, current policies of many governments promote the opposite. For example, 82% of the subsidies of the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy are routed towards the production of animal products and animal feed (Kortleve et al. 2024: 1-2). Moreover, for American adults the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2020: 96) promotes the consumption of 720ml of cow milk or other dairy per day and recommends a protein intake through meat and eggs between 652 g and 936 g per week. In this bachelor thesis I outline the current state of animal agriculture, its emissions and the associated harm towards animals and humans. The empirical findings are dissected ethically with a consequentialist approach and a deontological approach. The ethical analysis concerning the decisions of individuals is then converted into a political philosophy regarding the duties of states towards present and future generations and animals including corresponding policy implications. The normative argument is mainly based on the example of industrialized animal agricul-ture, the area where most of the interaction between animals and humans occurs. Nevertheless, other sectors where animals are used for human consumption or entertainment are discussed in less detail, in order to analyze the arguments for veganism by law. In short, using the recommended political argument structure of Abel et al. (2021: 6) the following hypothesis acts as the basis for the political and philosophical discussion and is revised where necessary: Moral claims: The state should protect present and future generations and animal rights. Empirical claims: Animal agriculture is a major contributor to climate change and its corresponding effects and violates the wellbeing of animals regularly. Conclusion: The state should enforce veganism by law.