Is it vegan to eat an animal that died of natural causes?

January 2, 2026 •

5 min read

According to the Vegan Society's official definition, veganism seeks to exclude all forms of animal exploitation and cruelty as far as possible and practicable. The question of eating an animal that died naturally is a complex ethical thought experiment that divides opinion, even within the vegan community, touching on issues of principle versus practicality.

Quick Summary

This article explores the ethical considerations behind eating an animal that died naturally, examining perspectives from animal rights and dietary veganism, and discussing the distinction between not causing harm and exploiting animal bodies. It also considers the practical and health implications of such an act.

Key Points

Ethical Veganism: True veganism is not just a diet but a moral philosophy against all animal exploitation, regardless of how an animal died.
Inherent Worth: From an animal rights perspective, eating a dead animal is unethical because it treats a being with inherent worth as a consumable resource.
Not a Practical Dilemma: The debate is largely hypothetical, as ethical vegans would generally not consume animal carcasses, and there are significant health risks involved.
Ecological Cycle: Allowing a naturally deceased animal's body to decompose and nourish the ecosystem is considered a more respectful and natural process than human appropriation.
Distinction from Harm: The argument is not about causing harm, but about the principle of rejecting animal commodification. A dead animal cannot be harmed, but its use still reflects an exploitative mindset.
Utilitarian vs. Rights: Some philosophical stances, like strict utilitarianism, might permit consuming a dead animal under very specific conditions, but this is often rejected by mainstream animal rights-based veganism.

Understanding the Core Tenets of Veganism

To understand the ethical answer to whether it is vegan to eat an animal that died naturally, it's essential to first grasp the fundamental principles of veganism. Many people mistakenly believe that veganism is merely a diet that excludes meat and dairy. While a plant-based diet is a key component, ethical veganism is a moral philosophy that extends beyond food to avoid all forms of animal exploitation.

The Vegan Society's Definition

The Vegan Society, the organization that coined the term 'vegan', defines it as "a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose". This definition is crucial because it frames veganism not as a set of rigid rules but as a guiding principle focused on the active rejection of exploitation. From this perspective, the act of eating an animal, regardless of how it died, can be viewed as participating in a system that sees animals as a commodity to be used for human ends. Even if an animal died naturally, using its body for food could be seen as reinforcing the idea that animals exist for human consumption.

Animal Rights vs. Utilitarianism

The vegan perspective on natural death is also shaped by different philosophical stances, primarily contrasting animal rights with a utilitarian approach. Animal rights theorists, like Tom Regan, argue that sentient animals are "subjects-of-a-life" and have inherent worth and moral rights, including the right to life. From this viewpoint, using an animal's body for food is inherently wrong because it treats the animal as a resource, disrespecting its inherent value regardless of the circumstances of its death. Utilitarianism, as promoted by Peter Singer, focuses on minimizing suffering and maximizing well-being. A strict utilitarian might argue that if eating an animal carcass causes no new suffering and prevents waste, it could be a morally neutral act, or even a good one if it replaces meat from an animal that was farmed and killed. However, Singer himself argues against meat consumption due to the inherent suffering in the industry. The potential psychological harm to a vegan from consuming an animal body, or the risk of normalizing the consumption of animal products, would also need to be considered in a utilitarian calculus.

The Intentionality Factor: Roadkill vs. Natural Death

While eating an animal that died of natural causes is a hypothetical scenario, the real-world equivalent often debated is consuming roadkill. Arguments for consuming roadkill within a vegan context focus on the lack of intent—the driver did not intend to harm the animal—and the environmental benefit of not wasting the carcass. However, this is distinct from the core vegan philosophy of rejecting exploitation. The animal was not a victim of human exploitation in the traditional sense, but the act of using its body still treats it as a resource. This is a distinction that many ethical vegans find important.

Practical and Emotional Considerations

Beyond the philosophical arguments, there are practical and emotional factors to consider. A vegan lifestyle involves more than just diet; it's a complete ethical stance. The emotional and psychological aspect of consuming an animal, even one that died of natural causes, can be deeply unsettling for someone who has rejected animal products for ethical reasons. The ingrained societal view of meat as a food item is what many vegans actively work to dismantle, and consuming a dead animal could be seen as a step backward.

Health Risks and Safety: Eating an animal that died of unknown causes presents significant health risks. Without knowing the cause of death or how long the animal has been dead, there is a risk of contracting diseases or food poisoning. A vegan society, focused on well-being and health, would likely discourage such a practice for public health reasons.

Waste and the Ecosystem: Some might argue that leaving a dead animal to decompose is wasteful. However, in nature, an animal's body is never truly wasted. It becomes a food source for scavengers, insects, and bacteria, returning nutrients to the soil and contributing to the ecosystem. A vegan might argue that it is more ethical to let the body serve its natural ecological purpose rather than appropriating it for human use.

Ethical Frameworks Compared


Aspect	Ethical Veganism (Animal Rights)	Utilitarian Veganism	Dietary Veganism (Plant-Based)
Core Principle	Animals have intrinsic rights and should not be exploited.	Maximize well-being, minimize suffering.	Diet is based on plant foods for health or environmental reasons.
View on Natural Death	Opposes eating the body as it treats the animal as a resource.	Might consider it permissible if no harm is caused and it prevents waste.	Not relevant to the ethical stance; depends on individual.
Stance on Scavenging	Generally against it, as it involves utilizing an animal's body.	Could be permissible if it replaces industrially farmed meat.	A personal choice based on health and safety; not an ethical rule.
Basis for Decision	Philosophical belief in animal's inherent worth.	Calculation of overall happiness and suffering.	Health benefits, environmental impact, or personal preference.

The Verdict: The Spirit of Veganism

Ultimately, eating an animal that died of natural causes is not consistent with the philosophy of ethical veganism. The core principle is not simply about preventing intentional harm but about rejecting the entire paradigm of animal exploitation and the commodification of animal bodies. Even without active harm, the act of using an animal's body treats it as a means to an end, which is contrary to the belief in an animal's inherent worth. While a theoretical utilitarian argument might be made, it is largely overshadowed by the practical and psychological aspects, and the risk of undermining the broader ethical message. The most consistent vegan action would be to allow the animal to decompose and return to the ecosystem naturally, supporting the natural cycle without human interference.

For more perspective on the difference between ethical and dietary veganism, refer to this article on VeganFriendly.org.uk.

Conclusion

While a thought experiment about eating a naturally deceased animal might seem a moral gray area, the consensus among ethical vegans is that it is not a vegan act. The philosophy of veganism extends beyond just preventing cruelty to actively rejecting the objectification and commodification of animal life. Eating an animal's body, even post-mortem, is seen as participating in the problematic human-centric worldview that views animals as resources. Therefore, adhering to the core principles of veganism means abstaining from consuming animals under any circumstance, including natural death, and letting nature take its course. This aligns with the wider goals of advocating for animal rights and acknowledging the intrinsic value of every sentient being.

Frequently Asked Questions

Yes, from an ethical vegan standpoint. The act of eating a deceased animal is considered a form of exploitation because it uses the animal's body as a resource, reinforcing the human-centric idea that animals exist for our benefit.

An ethical vegan follows the philosophy of avoiding animal exploitation in all areas of life, including food, clothing, and entertainment. A dietary vegan, or someone on a plant-based diet, abstains from animal products primarily for health or environmental reasons, without necessarily adopting the full ethical philosophy.

From an ecological perspective, a dead animal is not 'wasted'. Its body provides food for scavengers, decomposes, and returns nutrients to the soil, contributing to the natural ecosystem. Ethical vegans believe this is the more appropriate use of the body.

In extreme survival scenarios, where it is a matter of life or death, most ethical frameworks, including veganism, would prioritize the human's life. The Vegan Society's definition includes the clause "as far as is possible and practicable," which would cover such extraordinary situations.

Ethical veganism is a human moral philosophy. The actions of wild animals, who operate on instinct for survival, are not judged by the same ethical standards that apply to humans. Vegans do not condemn a lion for eating a zebra, but they do condemn humans who choose to eat meat when they have other options.

Yes, significant health risks are associated with eating an animal that died of unknown causes, including potential disease and contamination. This practical consideration reinforces the vegan decision not to consume naturally deceased animals.

No, it is not considered vegan by most ethical vegans. While the intent to harm was absent, eating roadkill is still seen as using an animal's body as a commodity, which goes against the fundamental principles of rejecting exploitation. The health risks are also a major concern.