Veganism is Not a Diet
Jun. 12th, 2023 08:31 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
unspeakablehorrorAlthough vegans including myself often eat a plant-based diet, a plant-based diet is neither necessary nor sufficient to veganism. Since I think this is often a point of confusion regarding what veganism is in the first place, I want to elaborate on what veganism is and why this is the case.
Philosophy and Definition
The first definition of veganism comes from the Vegan Society in 1949, where it was stated as "[t]he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man". While this group was far from the first to articulate a philosophy of avoiding animal exploitation, this is where the word 'vegan' first became associated with these ideas.
Veganism, like pacifism and many other philosophies, strives for an ideal that is not actually possible to fully achieve in our world as it exists today (and very likely may never be possible). Every time I accidentally step on a bug, I'm killing an animal. If I kill a mosquito or a flea or a tick, I'm killing an animal. If I buy animal products that come from confined or domesticated animals (as the vast majority of all animal products do), I am exploiting an animal. Furthermore, I contribute to animal exploitation by participating in society at all. This is also true of human murder, suffering, and exploitation, so I don't see my desire to avoid the murder, suffering, and exploitation of animals in general as more idealistic than avoiding the murder, suffering, or exploitation of humans specifically. As an individual, I have no ability to entirely prevent any of these things, and due to the conflict and contradictions present in society, I don't think even an entire society could accomplish either of these goals under the restrictions that exist in our world.
What I can do is to strive to make the world a better place. It serves no purpose to berate or judge others for what they are incapable of avoiding. However, a system of ethics means very little if the existence of unavoidable injustice can be used to justify avoidable injustice. If I were to say that many car accidents are unavoidable, and therefore I should not be judged if I hit a person with a car because I thought it would be funny, that would be using the unavoidable injustice of our world to attempt to justify an entirely avoidable injustice.
Thus I do not consider the argument that we cannot prevent all animal suffering and death as an excuse to not avoid causing the suffering and death of other animals where it is possible to avoid it. Likewise death being an eventual inevitability for us all cannot be used to justify the murder of a human or any other animal.
The issue of whether or not other animals have value that grants them ethical consideration is not universally agreed upon, but by definition vegans accept this to be true. In my case, as a sentientist, I value all sentient life, and my observation and knowledge of animals leads me to believe that most if not all possess sentience. Since I cannot know if animals (or indeed anyone) besides myself are actually conscious, this is in practice an assumption I must make based on observations which I know can only imperfectly communicate the existence or lack of sentience. I think it reasonable to round up rather than down and assume a lifeform like a coral is sentient when it possibly is not than to assume it is not sentient when it could be. It seems pretty self-evident to me that insects are sentient, if almost certainly more limited in their experiential capacity than we are. Other vegans may have different justifications for why animals should be granted such ethical considerations, but by definition must come to the same conclusions regarding their treatment.
For people who are not vegan, I think the perspective on non-human animals falls into roughly three categories:
* animals are objects and thus any behavior towards them is morally acceptable (the behaviorist position)
* animals are sentient, conscious beings, but their sentience is lesser than human sentience, and/or the ethical value of their life is mostly or entirely tied to the benefit it imparts to humanity (the animal welfarist position)
* animals are sentient, conscious beings and we should avoiding killing them, but exploitation is acceptable in some or perhaps all circumstances (the vegetarian position)
Some non-vegan positions may combine these three positions in various ways or even incorporate a vegan position for a limited subset of animals (eg. the smart ones), but any belief falling in one of these three categories is by definition non-vegan.
Not a Diet
Veganism is not a diet because it doesn't require complete avoidance of animal products in the diet, and it is not limited to diet.
Hold on, I can hear some people saying, how can a vegan consume animal products and still be vegan? So if I drink milk and eat chicken, I can still be a vegan? The answer to that question is, it depends on why you are consuming these products. If you are consuming them because you cannot avoid them, you can still be a vegan, for the reasons I described earlier regarding unavoidable injustice and its place in moral reasoning in general.
Veganism is also not limited to diet. Vegans believe animals should not be killed or exploited for any purpose, thus we should also avoid zoos, horseback riding, animal experimentation, animal-derived clothing like leather or wool, and killing parasites or 'pests' whenever possible and practicable. When such things are or are not possible and practicable is often a source of intense disagreement even among vegans.
What is Plant-Based
A plant-based diet includes plants, fungi, microbes such as yeast or bacteria, and inorganic substances. Basically, anything that doesn't come from an animal.
Is Use of Animal Products Always Exploitation?
Yes and no. Yes in that in a practical sense, the vast majority of all animal product use in our society today (whether it comes from a factory farm or not) is likely the result of exploitation that causes great suffering and early death to animals. This is true due to practical limitations even when the humans involved in managing the animals are knowledgable and benevolent towards the animals in question.
No in that scavenging already-dead animal remains or other naturally shed leavings by animals (feces, hair, feathers, shed lizard skins or insect exoskeletons) for any purpose is not murder or exploitation. Vegans may avoid these things for other reasons, such as it being difficult or impossible to determine the scavenged status of such items, risk of illness, or due to personal preference, but they are still vegan.
I hope this gives some useful information on veganism in general and on my perspective regarding it specifically.
Philosophy and Definition
The first definition of veganism comes from the Vegan Society in 1949, where it was stated as "[t]he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man". While this group was far from the first to articulate a philosophy of avoiding animal exploitation, this is where the word 'vegan' first became associated with these ideas.
Veganism, like pacifism and many other philosophies, strives for an ideal that is not actually possible to fully achieve in our world as it exists today (and very likely may never be possible). Every time I accidentally step on a bug, I'm killing an animal. If I kill a mosquito or a flea or a tick, I'm killing an animal. If I buy animal products that come from confined or domesticated animals (as the vast majority of all animal products do), I am exploiting an animal. Furthermore, I contribute to animal exploitation by participating in society at all. This is also true of human murder, suffering, and exploitation, so I don't see my desire to avoid the murder, suffering, and exploitation of animals in general as more idealistic than avoiding the murder, suffering, or exploitation of humans specifically. As an individual, I have no ability to entirely prevent any of these things, and due to the conflict and contradictions present in society, I don't think even an entire society could accomplish either of these goals under the restrictions that exist in our world.
What I can do is to strive to make the world a better place. It serves no purpose to berate or judge others for what they are incapable of avoiding. However, a system of ethics means very little if the existence of unavoidable injustice can be used to justify avoidable injustice. If I were to say that many car accidents are unavoidable, and therefore I should not be judged if I hit a person with a car because I thought it would be funny, that would be using the unavoidable injustice of our world to attempt to justify an entirely avoidable injustice.
Thus I do not consider the argument that we cannot prevent all animal suffering and death as an excuse to not avoid causing the suffering and death of other animals where it is possible to avoid it. Likewise death being an eventual inevitability for us all cannot be used to justify the murder of a human or any other animal.
The issue of whether or not other animals have value that grants them ethical consideration is not universally agreed upon, but by definition vegans accept this to be true. In my case, as a sentientist, I value all sentient life, and my observation and knowledge of animals leads me to believe that most if not all possess sentience. Since I cannot know if animals (or indeed anyone) besides myself are actually conscious, this is in practice an assumption I must make based on observations which I know can only imperfectly communicate the existence or lack of sentience. I think it reasonable to round up rather than down and assume a lifeform like a coral is sentient when it possibly is not than to assume it is not sentient when it could be. It seems pretty self-evident to me that insects are sentient, if almost certainly more limited in their experiential capacity than we are. Other vegans may have different justifications for why animals should be granted such ethical considerations, but by definition must come to the same conclusions regarding their treatment.
For people who are not vegan, I think the perspective on non-human animals falls into roughly three categories:
* animals are objects and thus any behavior towards them is morally acceptable (the behaviorist position)
* animals are sentient, conscious beings, but their sentience is lesser than human sentience, and/or the ethical value of their life is mostly or entirely tied to the benefit it imparts to humanity (the animal welfarist position)
* animals are sentient, conscious beings and we should avoiding killing them, but exploitation is acceptable in some or perhaps all circumstances (the vegetarian position)
Some non-vegan positions may combine these three positions in various ways or even incorporate a vegan position for a limited subset of animals (eg. the smart ones), but any belief falling in one of these three categories is by definition non-vegan.
Not a Diet
Veganism is not a diet because it doesn't require complete avoidance of animal products in the diet, and it is not limited to diet.
Hold on, I can hear some people saying, how can a vegan consume animal products and still be vegan? So if I drink milk and eat chicken, I can still be a vegan? The answer to that question is, it depends on why you are consuming these products. If you are consuming them because you cannot avoid them, you can still be a vegan, for the reasons I described earlier regarding unavoidable injustice and its place in moral reasoning in general.
Veganism is also not limited to diet. Vegans believe animals should not be killed or exploited for any purpose, thus we should also avoid zoos, horseback riding, animal experimentation, animal-derived clothing like leather or wool, and killing parasites or 'pests' whenever possible and practicable. When such things are or are not possible and practicable is often a source of intense disagreement even among vegans.
What is Plant-Based
A plant-based diet includes plants, fungi, microbes such as yeast or bacteria, and inorganic substances. Basically, anything that doesn't come from an animal.
Is Use of Animal Products Always Exploitation?
Yes and no. Yes in that in a practical sense, the vast majority of all animal product use in our society today (whether it comes from a factory farm or not) is likely the result of exploitation that causes great suffering and early death to animals. This is true due to practical limitations even when the humans involved in managing the animals are knowledgable and benevolent towards the animals in question.
No in that scavenging already-dead animal remains or other naturally shed leavings by animals (feces, hair, feathers, shed lizard skins or insect exoskeletons) for any purpose is not murder or exploitation. Vegans may avoid these things for other reasons, such as it being difficult or impossible to determine the scavenged status of such items, risk of illness, or due to personal preference, but they are still vegan.
I hope this gives some useful information on veganism in general and on my perspective regarding it specifically.