The Perfectionist Fallacy

If you know me, you know I’m not 100% perfect in any aspect of my life (aside from my choice in partner ❤️). That also applies to my ethical choices. It’s practically impossible to be perfect when we live in a modern capitalist society.

Numerous things I do cause indirect harm:

• I take flights for holidays.
• I order things from Amazon.
• I use AI tools for my work, which rely on massive, water-hungry data centres.
• I keep an obligate carnivore trapped inside my flat for my own selfish needs (sorry, Aloo).

I’m nowhere near eliminating the negative effects of my actions, so why bother? I should just do whatever, right?

All or Nothing

This is called the Perfectionist Fallacy. Essentially, if I can’t achieve total perfection in my life, what’s the point of even trying? I feel like this is just a convenient excuse to avoid making any meaningful changes.

It would be absurd to only apply this logic to eating animals. Imagine if I applied it to my marriage: “Well, we disagreed on what TV show to watch last night, so I might as well start filing for divorce.” That would be crazy! All we can do is strive to make better choices where we can, even if we can’t achieve absolute perfection.

Reducing Harm Practically

Yes, I know that “there is no ethical consumption under capitalism,” but I can still make a practical difference.

If I can eliminate some unnecessary suffering simply by picking tofu instead of chicken, the fact that I occasionally take a flight doesn’t invalidate that choice.

I’m not trying to achieve moral perfection. I’m just trying my best to cause as little suffering as practicably possible.