On the Limitations of "Veganism"

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
nottoohuman
Newbie
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:00 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: On the Limitations of "Veganism"

Post by nottoohuman »

just not useful to define it for everyone else as about any one philosophy
Precisely. It is a way of living that can feasibly issue from distinct, and even conflicting, sources.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: On the Limitations of "Veganism"

Post by brimstoneSalad »

nottoohuman wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:01 pm I also contacted TVS directly and they were unable to clarify the use of "philosophy" in their definition.
Of course they couldn't, because it's no one single philosophy; there's a spectrum of compatible systems. Just like Chemistry seemingly works regardless of what theory of quantum gravity you subscribe to. Meta-ethics is a bit beyond the scope of the definition, the point is only that it DOES go beyond mere practice by definition.

The only thing the definition seems to suggest is some sort of consequentialism and element of pragmatism.
Now NonZeroSum posted something from them against single issue campaigns, and that does seem to be a contradiction since that's an arguably anti-pragmatic position to hold. That would be interesting to look into.
nottoohuman wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:01 pm >It's goal oriented and illustrates certain values.

The exact same goals for all vegans? The exact same values?
A set of partially overlapping goals and values, that may vary from case to case, the point only being that again it's not just practice. There's disagreement even among utilitarians on the details, the important thing is working at a philosophy and not just a ritual.
nottoohuman wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:01 pm I myself am surely not "looking for a deontological definition." However, there exist many deontologist and virtue ethicist vegans. Consequentialism is not the only normative theory that leads to, or better yet, employs veganism.
Deontological veganism is prone to plenty of inconsistencies (please see the thread I linked to); where do you draw the line? They may say they're vegan, but by that definition there are yet more contradictions. Deontologists respond very differently to these issues.

Consistent Virtue Ethicists establish the meta-ethical credibility of their systems through consequential arguments. It's rule consequentialism, and that's fine. Utilitarianism does not have a monopoly on consequentialism.
We have an ongoing thread on this issue (virtue ethics as consequentialism) here:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3365

nottoohuman wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:01 pm I say "employ" because veganism is a tool to actualize the theory, not the theory itself.
It's not a complete theory, but as I said neither is chemistry; that doesn't make it not science.
And there's nothing wrong with a theory being a tool, but you can't divorce that definition entirely from philosophical entanglement and treat it as a matter of practice alone.
nottoohuman wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:01 pm If veganism advertises itself as an "ethical stance about minimizing harm," not only will deontologist and virtue ethicist vegans simply disagree, but the definition is basically synonymous with utilitarianism.
Virtue ethicists may find the value of ahimsa an important virtue (among others).
Deontology doesn't even agree with itself on account of its contradictions, so that's no surprise. ;)

Classical utilitarianism is a particular formulation of consequentialism (one I do not agree with), and they don't have a monopoly on minimizing harm. I don't think that equates at all to utilitarianism.
nottoohuman wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:01 pm Moreover, while you and I may reject these other alternative normative theories, it doesn't mean that their adoption of "veganism" is unjustified.
If the philosophical implications of the definition are incompatible, it seems there is no logical justification there. Like, for instance, if they don't accept practicability as a limit (as deontologists may not), or not care about animals dying but just be opposed to getting their hands dirty (possibly a deontologist, or a bad virtue ethicist) so having no interest in promoting alternatives.

I would say it's compatible with many different consequentialist ethical systems, so I don't think this would be a common problem. Most people are on some level consequentialist, even if they take issue with utilitarianism.
nottoohuman wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:01 pm I said that anti-speciesism is an area of social justice
How does anti-speciesism have anything to do with social justice?
It seems incompatible in at least two ways:
1. We don't have other species participating in the full social contract; we have limited protections out of compassion, but neither do they vote/represent their own political voices nor are they candidates for equality in society.
2. In order to be anti-speciesist, you have to be ableist in some sense (at least in terms of IQ or something like it), or you end up calling for equal value to insects and human beings which is an absurd proposition. That's something most social justice advocates oppose.
nottoohuman wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:01 pm and veganism is a tool to work for that justice.
Veganism isn't inherently anti-speciesist. It recognizes the value of other beings, but that doesn't mean it's equal or proportional. There are plenty of speciesist vegans. There are also non-speciesist meat-eaters; I've known and talked to many who have had no problem eating cat/dog/etc. as long as it was delicious.
nottoohuman wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:01 pm Veganism can and is used to address other moral issues as well.
What do you mean?
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: On the Limitations of "Veganism"

Post by NonZeroSum »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Sun Aug 20, 2017 12:45 am. . .the point is only that it DOES go beyond mere practice by definition.
But it doesn't have to, so any general definition that includes philosophy excludes those people who aren't doing it from a higher order philosophical questioning.
jessdanir wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:22 amAs much as I want to adopt a vegan diet and join these types of vegan forums, I personally have no ethical reasoning for wanting such a diet. I would try to eat vegetarian, but most dairy makes me feel physically sick. I do not see eating a vegan diet as a lifestyle, but potentially a way to further improve my health. I have strayed away and leave most forums when I encounter the "holier than thou" approach many vocal vegans take. For me, it is a diet as much as me not eating processed meats and pre-made meals is; some can choose to make it a lifestyle, but I think for many that is out of the question.
Take ModVegan's recent review of TheVeganStrategist's new book:
ModVegan wrote:Instead of trying to appeal (exclusively) to the public's higher nature, Leenaert provides another option: give them "wrong reasons" to do the right thing. This doesn't mean deliberate deception. It simply means surrendering control over the medium in favour of the message. Vegan advocates are old pros at telling people not only what they should think about animal rights, but why they ought to believe it. And it's not working very well. Perhaps it is time for an approach that focuses on helping people change their behaviour, without necessarily making repentance and conversion our central focus.
________
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sun Aug 20, 2017 12:45 am
nottoohuman wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2017 6:01 pm I said that anti-speciesism is an area of social justice
How does anti-speciesism have anything to do with social justice?
It seems incompatible in at least two ways:
1. We don't have other species participating in the full social contract; we have limited protections out of compassion, but neither do they vote/represent their own political voices nor are they candidates for equality in society.
I suggest reading Nussbaum or Kymlica and Donaldson's capabilities approaches, we don't need to extend capabilities to animals that wouldn't want them, but discriminating against a pig because they're not as cute and fluffy as dogs would be arbitrarily speciesist.

Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership (Nussbaum)
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3373

Rethinking membership and participation in an inclusive democracy: cognitive disability, children, animals (Donaldson and Kymlicka)
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3390

You don't even need to assume companion domestic animal relationship, simply the attempt to refine a more symbiotic relationship with animals that respects their social interests and intervenes only to manage that relationship better and provide veterinary care, disease prevention, etc.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sun Aug 20, 2017 12:45 am2. In order to be anti-speciesist, you have to be ableist in some sense (at least in terms of IQ or something like it), or you end up calling for equal value to insects and human beings which is an absurd proposition. That's something most social justice advocates oppose.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Wed Sep 16, 2015 10:10 am Either you believe ALL animals are equal, from a dust mite to a human, and it's equally wrong to kill a mite and a man, or you're ableist (which is actually rational, because it ascribes moral value based on ability in cognition), or you're a speciesist (which is just as irrational as the initial proposition).

Which one are you?

1. You believe mites and humans are morally equal
2. You're ableist and believe beings with little to no cognitive ability have less value than highly intelligent and sentient ones
3. You're a speciesist, and think non-humans have no moral value, and all humans have equal moral value by virtue only of having 'human' DNA.
Ableism is discrimination and social prejudice against people with disabilities. . . There are stereotypes associated with various disabilities. These stereotypes in turn serve as a justification for ableist practices and reinforce discriminatory attitudes and behaviors toward people who are disabled. Labeling affects people when it limits their options for action or changes their identity.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ableism
You're using a different extreme definition of ableism which is not mainstream or necessary. Not devoting funds towards ramps on buses so that intelligent humans who want to go on living as close to the capabilities they had before an accident; because it's a burden on the economy is ableist. You might even promote a rational limited eugenics, as long as you aren't enforcing control over women's own bodies because of minor disabilities you don't think should exist under any circumstance, that could be abelist motivated and sexist.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: On the Limitations of "Veganism"

Post by brimstoneSalad »

NonZeroSum wrote: Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:23 am But it doesn't have to, so any general definition that includes philosophy excludes those people who aren't doing it from a higher order philosophical questioning.
We already have a perfectly fine word for that: vegetarian. Pure vegetarian, if you like (rather than lacto-vegetarian).
There's no need to coopt veganism to create a new label for vegetarian when one already exists, that only deprives people who abstain from animal products for ethical reasons and extend the practice beyond diet (for which there are only ethical reasons to do) of identity.
jessdanir wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:22 amAs much as I want to adopt a vegan diet and join these types of vegan forums, I personally have no ethical reasoning for wanting such a diet. I would try to eat vegetarian, but most dairy makes me feel physically sick.
That is vegetarian, it's just not lacto-vegetarian. There's also the term "dietary vegan" for this, which the vegan society definition mentions.
The problem is that abstaining from using leather or products unnecessarily tested on animals doesn't have any health basis, and that's part of full-blown veganism.
It's great to be a vegetarian.
jessdanir wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:22 amI have strayed away and leave most forums when I encounter the "holier than thou" approach many vocal vegans take.
You don't have to be "holier than thou" to do something for ethical reasons.
If you have any concern for the environment or animal suffering at all, there is an ethical dimension to your choice too, it just might take a back seat to the health aspects.

ModVegan wrote:Vegan advocates are old pros at telling people not only what they should think about animal rights, but why they ought to believe it. And it's not working very well. Perhaps it is time for an approach that focuses on helping people change their behaviour, without necessarily making repentance and conversion our central focus.
There's a good argument to be made for advocating for vegetarianism and reducetarianism instead of veganism.

________

NonZeroSum wrote: Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:23 amI suggest reading Nussbaum or Kymlica and Donaldson's capabilities approaches, we don't need to extend capabilities to animals that wouldn't want them, but discriminating against a pig because they're not as cute and fluffy as dogs would be arbitrarily speciesist.
I am aware, but you can eat the pig AND the dog, and not be a speciesist. It so happens that most people are speciesist, but it is not a necessary component of meat eating.

While speciesism may have something to do with some concepts of justice, it doesn't have to do with social justice, because other species are not part of our human society; our primary social contract. They are not citizens in any meaningful way.
NonZeroSum wrote: Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:23 amRethinking membership and participation in an inclusive democracy: cognitive disability, children, animals (Donaldson and Kymlicka)
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3390
Arbitrary cut off for "domesticated animals"; what does it even mean to bring animals into our society?
What about those who came in due to human activity but weren't deliberately brought in?
And what's the difference?
And does a dog or a cat deserve equal consideration to a child? This person is against discrimination for IQ differences from what I read.
NonZeroSum wrote: Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:23 amsimply the attempt to refine a more symbiotic relationship with animals that respects their social interests and intervenes only to manage that relationship better and provide veterinary care, disease prevention, etc.
That's fine where it's practical, but it is neither possible nor moral to devote the same resources to cognitively impaired mouse as to a fully functioning human being. We have limited time and money, and it is a moral imperative to devote those resources to where they will have the most impact first; highly developed animals. The idea of leveling the playing field in terms of IQ is inherently opposed to that kind of pragmatic altruism.
NonZeroSum wrote: Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:23 amYou're using a different extreme definition of ableism which is not mainstream or necessary.
No I'm not. This is necessarily part of the definition, unless you exclude cognitive impairment. I'm not talking about giving them things they have no interest in, even equal consideration for the medical needs of a fly and a human is ridiculous.
I'm all for excluding cognitive impairment from the definition, and that would make the definition much more reasonable, but it's something the source you cited above (Rethinking membership and participation in an inclusive democracy: cognitive disability, children, animals) is against.
NonZeroSum wrote: Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:23 amNot devoting funds towards ramps on buses so that intelligent humans who want to go on living as close to the capabilities they had before an accident; because it's a burden on the economy is ableist.
No it isn't. It's serving the majority with resources as efficiently as possible; it requires no prejudice or intentional discrimination. That's just resource allocation.
It also isn't racist for a restaurant to only sell dairy products when non-europeans have more trouble digesting them, or racist for an amusement park to not offer sunscreen booths and shade when light skinned people burn very easily. It's also not ableist for a peanut stand to only sell peanuts when some people are deathly allergic.
Using such a definition of -ism that requires people to bend over backwards for any conceivable problem another may have makes it completely impracticable.
You can not accuse people who are unable to expend inordinate resources catering to every possible issue anybody could have as being racist/ableist etc; all you do it put people off when you accuse them of that stuff.

Ableist would be not hiring a disabled person for a job he or she could do easily (like a work from home desk job) when there's no practical reason to not want to hire the person other than your prejudice.
Ablism might also be city zoning that prohibited putting in a ramp for no good reason, if people wanted to spend their own resources putting in that ramp. There are effectively instances of this, mostly due to reassessment triggered by having to get permits in some cases, and it's terrible.
Ablism could even be disproportionate allocation of public funds relative to that contributed by the disabled; if the disabled are contributing 1% of tax money, and less than 1% of expenses on entrance structures are for accessibility, that could indicate an issue, particularly if they're wasting money on fancy doors or marble finishing or something like that.

We can certainly point to things that are senselessly discriminatory, and how a refusal to reevaluate what we're doing in those cases could be ableist, but generalizing potentially practical considerations as ableist is just wrong.
NonZeroSum wrote: Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:23 amYou might even promote a rational limited eugenics, as long as you aren't enforcing control over women's own bodies because of minor disabilities you don't think should exist under any circumstance, that could be abelist motivated and sexist.
Abortions based on disabilities could technically be ableist.
Disabilities from severe cognitive impairment to having your bones shatter easily (something this place is celebrating: https://www.liveaction.org/news/parents-of-little-girl-brittle-bone-disease-refused-abortion-we-would-not-change-zoe/ ) to severe pain from any touch, and other diseases that will lead to lives of suffering.

I don't know what you're saying here.
Do you oppose aborting non-sentient fetuses that will grow to suffer immensely and cost millions of dollars in medical bills that could be used to fund care for others who are already sentient and in need? Or do you support/accept those practices?

Ableism can be good or bad depending on the context, and in many cases it's a necessary consideration for any rational morality.
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: On the Limitations of "Veganism"

Post by NonZeroSum »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:22 am
NonZeroSum wrote: Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:23 am But it doesn't have to, so any general definition that includes philosophy excludes those people who aren't doing it from a higher order philosophical questioning.
We already have a perfectly fine word for that: vegetarian. Pure vegetarian, if you like (rather than lacto-vegetarian).
There's no need to coopt veganism to create a new label for vegetarian when one already exists, that only deprives people who abstain from animal products for ethical reasons and extend the practice beyond diet (for which there are only ethical reasons to do) of identity.
You're right that to be a dietary vegan is to be a pure vegetarian, a subset within the vegetarian society definition. So all ethical vegans are as well plant-based purists or vegetarian purists.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:22 amThe problem is that abstaining from using leather or products unnecessarily tested on animals doesn't have any health basis, and that's part of full-blown veganism.
It's conceivable that a dietary vegan wouldn't buy any by-products from keeping animals for food because they wouldn't want to invest their money in something that is done for the purpose of harming your health, just as you wouldn't want the government to do so with your taxes, that would be a political choice.

I would like to go in a store and people understand when you say vegan you don't want any animal derived products, a vegan definition that says no animal products would do that, they don't need to understand that for a lot of vegans the fact that schools of philosophy coincide with that stance is important to them, even if it's most of the time a given. And those anti-speciesist liberation reasons in my eyes, and interest consequentialist in yours will be the basis - if we feel it possible to - to argue people over to veganism as a tool/way of life.

________
brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:22 am
NonZeroSum wrote: Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:23 amsimply the attempt to refine a more symbiotic relationship with animals that respects their social interests and intervenes only to manage that relationship better and provide veterinary care, disease prevention, etc.
That's fine where it's practical, but it is neither possible nor moral to devote the same resources to cognitively impaired mouse as to a fully functioning human being. We have limited time and money, and it is a moral imperative to devote those resources to where they will have the most impact first; highly developed animals. The idea of leveling the playing field in terms of IQ is inherently opposed to that kind of pragmatic altruism.
If you don't have enough resources, you don't have enough resources, your objective then is to make the biggest adjustments that would reverse the most pain of abelism within society, which would mean tackling the needs of the most sentient first.

Abelism is about discrimination based on unfair stereotypes, which is why I don't think it's useful to use it in the way you are confusing it with the name a trait thought experiment.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:22 am
NonZeroSum wrote: Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:23 amNot devoting funds towards ramps on buses so that intelligent humans who want to go on living as close to the capabilities they had before an accident; because it's a burden on the economy is ableist.
. . .
Ablism could even be disproportionate allocation of public funds relative to that contributed by the disabled; if the disabled are contributing 1% of tax money, and less than 1% of expenses on entrance structures are for accessibility, that could indicate an issue, particularly if they're wasting money on fancy doors or marble finishing or something like that.
The example I was referring to then. New buses in london which would cost £350,000 each, signature policy of the capital's mayor, continued running of buses wheelchair users can't get on, and pavements the wrong height for wheelchairs. Incompetence plays a big part but willingness to follow up on advice of equality commission also.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:22 am
NonZeroSum wrote: Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:23 amYou might even promote a rational limited eugenics, as long as you aren't enforcing control over women's own bodies because of minor disabilities you don't think should exist under any circumstance, that could be abelist motivated and sexist.
Abortions based on disabilities could technically be ableist.
Yes, if they were basing their abortion on a stereotype notion of how much suffering they would all be in for.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 12:22 amDo you oppose aborting non-sentient fetuses that will grow to suffer immensely and cost millions of dollars in medical bills that could be used to fund care for others who are already sentient and in need? Or do you support/accept those practices?
I think we should advocate and support those people aborting and being able to try again, but would be a really grey area enforcing such a decision in a court of law, outside of "true fetal non-viability, birth defects so severe that the child can’t possibly live more than a few days after birth even with medical help", if there are examples of people growing up with the disease and saying they value their life despite all the pain and procedures.

I support women aborting up to their due date and women putting off treatment knowing they'll die to save the life of their fetus.

I wish my mother had aborted me by Lynn Beisner
This is no 'I wish I'd never been born' howl of angst. I love my mother, and having an abortion would have given her a better life.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/15/i-wish-my-mother-aborted-me

A woman who put off life-saving cancer treatment so that her unborn baby girl could survive has died, just weeks after her daughter celebrated her first birthday.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/tributes-as-mother-who-delayed-cancer-treatment-to-save-her-unborn-baby-dies-8564022.html
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: On the Limitations of "Veganism"

Post by brimstoneSalad »

NonZeroSum wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:34 pm It's conceivable that a dietary vegan wouldn't buy any by-products from keeping animals for food because they wouldn't want to invest their money in something that is done for the purpose of harming your health, just as you wouldn't want the government to do so with your taxes, that would be a political choice.
Those things aren't done for the purposes of harming health.

Sure, by basing the decision on radically incorrect information a dietary vegan might avoid these things because he or she thinks using animal products causes them to soak into the body on contact and cause cancer. That would be pretty bizarre and uncharacteristic, though, and I don't think the possibility of one person doing this some day justifies reorienting the entire definition.

I think we should stick with the Vegan Society definition, specifying dietary vegan if that's the case, and otherwise recognizing the ethical/philosophical nature of the concept (not just mere practice). Otherwise Jordan Peterson is right about Veganism. :shock:
NonZeroSum wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:34 pmI would like to go in a store and people understand when you say vegan you don't want any animal derived products, a vegan definition that says no animal products would do that,
But that's not all "vegan" is or does. It also provides a name to an idea in ethics which makes it possible to talk about it, think about it, and spread it. When we don't name things they remain nebulous and difficult to propagate.
We want the ethical ideas to spread, and for that they need a vessel, which is a word.
NonZeroSum wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:34 pmIf you don't have enough resources, you don't have enough resources, your objective then is to make the biggest adjustments that would reverse the most pain of abelism within society, which would mean tackling the needs of the most sentient first.
Why arbitrarily of Ableism, and not just the most pain period?
As easily as we can prefer solving pain caused by ableism, we could ignore it entirely and address something else. The only fair way to address suffering is to do it regardless of the cause, based only on what's most practical to fix first with the most impact with the resources we have.
NonZeroSum wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:34 pmAbelism is about discrimination based on unfair stereotypes, which is why I don't think it's useful to use it in the way you are confusing it with the name a trait thought experiment.
I'm just basing my argument about the broad definition on things anti-ableists say. They are against consideration based on IQ, even profound mental disability. They consider that ableism, despite all evidence saying it informs sentience which informs moral value.

If people didn't use it that way, and make accusations on the basis of such consideration, I wouldn't consider or worry about a definition that uses it that way.

I have no desire to accept the label "ableist" just to be contrarian (I think a definition excluding rational discrimination is most sensible). This is just the accusation that's leveled against anybody making these argument with regard to mental disability.

If you can change the minds of the anti-ableists, and convince them this shouldn't be part of the definition, I'll follow suit and stop worrying about the word usage.

You could argue that we should promote and use another definition in attempt to reclaim the term "ableism" for rational usage. I'm sympathetic to that reasoning, but I don't see a boat that has sprung a leak like you do: I see one that has sunk, and that's it's easier to just leave it and build a new boat.
NonZeroSum wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:34 pmYes, if they were basing their abortion on a stereotype notion of how much suffering they would all be in for.
Only if it were a false one, not informed by evidence but by bias.

With respect to abortion, though, it shouldn't take much evidence because the cost (at least early term) is so small. Seeing even a slight increase in probability of a difficult or painful life should be all a mother needs to see to make that decision to save her child from that.
There are extreme cases which are probably much more obvious, like merely missing a foot which isn't likely to meaningfully harm well being with modern prosthetics, or having something severe which will cause debilitating pain and result in a life expectancy of only a few years (like the shattering bones). I do agree that for practical purposes it's usually best to leave these things up to the parents.
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: On the Limitations of "Veganism"

Post by NonZeroSum »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:37 pm
NonZeroSum wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:34 pm It's conceivable that a dietary vegan wouldn't buy any by-products from keeping animals for food because they wouldn't want to invest their money in something that is done for the purpose of harming your health, just as you wouldn't want the government to do so with your taxes, that would be a political choice.
Those things aren't done for the purposes of harming health.

Sure, by basing the decision on radically incorrect information a dietary vegan might avoid these things because he or she thinks using animal products causes them to soak into the body on contact and cause cancer.
Aha obviously not what I meant, the primary purpose of the animal for food and its effect harming health on average, so you might avoid putting money towards byproducts of a process that's primary process had the effect of harming health. You can say that's egoist ethics or whatever, it's not necessary to the argument.

The article and my further reading drew my attention to the diversity and number of different schools of philosophy who attempt to claim the correct usage of veganism. How they use terms like lifestyle, way of life and philosophy to affirm their theories. From primarily consumer advocates who focus on lifestyle and put ethics on the back step, to the earlier vegan society definitions that were first primarily about oppression, then health, to now when it's almost utilitarian with later appeals to pro-intersectional analysis, likely through the term exploitation in the veganism definition.

nottoohuman proposed a simple descriptive definition to enhance the visibility of each of these philosophies separately, outside of the practical act of being vegan, to bring more clarity to the table:
nottoohuman wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:07 pmVeganism is a way of living that excludes, as far as is practicable, all use and consumption of animals and animal products.
The ethical vegans can still say the dietary vegans might not be in it for the best long-term reasons and the consumerist vegans can denounce the ethical ones when they get too holier than thou or whatever.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:37 pmOtherwise Jordan Peterson is right about Veganism.
What would he be right about under that definition? Instead of pretending vegans are one cohesive group this would highlight the different advocacy approaches and make it harder to stereotype if anything.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:37 pm
NonZeroSum wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:34 pmI would like to go in a store and people understand when you say vegan you don't want any animal derived products, a vegan definition that says no animal products would do that,
But that's not all "vegan" is or does. It also provides a name to an idea in ethics which makes it possible to talk about it, think about it, and spread it. When we don't name things they remain nebulous and difficult to propagate.
We want the ethical ideas to spread, and for that they need a vessel, which is a word.
That's just the why people are vegan, something which you can do by pointing to a number of distinct schools of philosophy or none, tailoring it to your audiance, for every different vegan there is a preferred addendum to the definition, best to keep it simple I think.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:37 pm
NonZeroSum wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:34 pmIf you don't have enough resources, you don't have enough resources, your objective then is to make the biggest adjustments that would reverse the most pain of abelism within society, which would mean tackling the needs of the most sentient first.
Why arbitrarily of Ableism, and not just the most pain period?
As easily as we can prefer solving pain caused by ableism, we could ignore it entirely and address something else. The only fair way to address suffering is to do it regardless of the cause, based only on what's most practical to fix first with the most impact with the resources we have.
We shouldn't ignore it entirely, that's the point, it sets a standard by which we shouldn't feel ok about just sitting back and putting our feet up and getting round to it later.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:37 pm
NonZeroSum wrote: Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:34 pmYes, if they were basing their abortion on a stereotype notion of how much suffering they would all be in for.
Only if it were a false one, not informed by evidence but by bias.
A stereotype notion is by definition the wrong methodology.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: On the Limitations of "Veganism"

Post by brimstoneSalad »

NonZeroSum wrote: Mon Aug 28, 2017 9:47 pm Aha obviously not what I meant, the primary purpose of the animal for food and its effect harming health on average, so you might avoid putting money towards byproducts of a process that's primary process had the effect of harming health.
Other people's health, not yours because you don't eat it.
If you think leather is just too expensive and not worth the value it provides to you, that's something else. But meat subsidizes leather just as much as leather subsidizes meat.
NonZeroSum wrote: Mon Aug 28, 2017 9:47 pm From primarily consumer advocates who focus on lifestyle and put ethics on the back step,
You can put them on the back step, but they're definitely there.
NonZeroSum wrote: Mon Aug 28, 2017 9:47 pm to the earlier vegan society definitions that were first primarily about oppression, then health, to now when it's almost utilitarian with later appeals to pro-intersectional analysis, likely through the term exploitation in the veganism definition.
Exploitation is the weakest word choice, particularly because it's ill-defined.
ex·ploi·ta·tion
ˌekˌsploiˈtāSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work.
"the exploitation of migrant workers"
synonyms: taking advantage, abuse, misuse, ill-treatment, unfair treatment, oppression
"the exploitation of the poor"
2.
the action of making use of and benefiting from resources.
"the Bronze Age saw exploitation of gold deposits"
synonyms: utilization, use, making use of, making the most of, capitalization on; informal cashing in on
"the exploitation of mineral resources"
Are we talking the first or the second definition? The second conflicts with practicability. And if the first, what is "fair"? The most objective definition probably boils down to it being in their interest relative to the cost/opportunity cost, something like informed consent and adherence to contract -- or something informed consent would reasonably be given to if it's not possible to obtain it. This is all very compatible with interest based consequentialism, and possibly utilitarianism as well.
NonZeroSum wrote: Mon Aug 28, 2017 9:47 pm
brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon Aug 28, 2017 6:37 pmOtherwise Jordan Peterson is right about Veganism.
What would he be right about under that definition?
That it's just a ritual.
NonZeroSum wrote: Mon Aug 28, 2017 9:47 pm That's just the why people are vegan, something which you can do by pointing to a number of distinct schools of philosophy or none, tailoring it to your audiance, for every different vegan there is a preferred addendum to the definition, best to keep it simple I think.
It already is simple, and it's compatible with a number of philosophical approaches because it's very general (even theistic perspectives), but it's not compatible with no philosophical or ethical approach at all.

I don't see how trying to remove that element of ethics is helpful, when that's what we're trying to get people to realize. Pretending there's not an inherent ethical dimension to it seems disingenuous.
We already have the word "vegetarian", and even "dietary vegan" to describe these things.
Curtailing the definition dumbs things down too much and sacrifices capital; and in particular it gives over legitimacy to the pseudoscience peddlers of altmed who want to push veganism as a cure all devoid of any ethical quality. The people who have long been arguing that we should take ethics completely out of the equation are doing it because they're selling something else, and it's not anything based on science.
I don't think it's helpful to collaborate with snake oil peddlers when they're the ones dragging down the legitimacy of the ethical arguments which would otherwise be much more acceptable to intelligent people if not associated with that stuff. We need to be fighting these people to clean up the image of veganism and make it more compatible with science and intellectual honesty.

There are great health reasons to drastically reduce meat consumption. There are no compelling health arguments against using other animal products, though, and once we're dealing with things like broths and byproducts, or small and occasional amounts in things most of those arguments evaporate, or at least become less compelling than arguments against vegan foods like processed starches and sugar, or possibly even whole foods like bananas or apples (comparatively, "junk fruit"). A vegetable and bean soup with a little bit of chicken stock is probably healthier than filling up on bananas, not because the trace of chicken stock is healthy but because the vegetables are so much healthier than a starch and sugar bomb. These are practical examples of choices real people have to make.

People who are vegan for "health reasons" alone should (for those reasons, if consistent) not be vegan, they should be indifferent to wearing and using animal products, cosmetics tested on animals, and in dietary terms even should be reducitarian/flexitarians who don't worry about broths or a little anchovy paste in their food, particularly if they are not being consistent in micro-managing the plant foods they're eating like true orthorexics.
While at home they may be whole food dietary vegans when it's convenient, if they are in a situation with limited options and have to choose between something like canned tuna fish and potato chips, by no means is the health argument clear in favor of the latter (and I think pretty much every health authority in the world would recommend the former).

An argument for strict veganism from a health perspective is either based on exaggeration and pseudoscience, or it falls apart once the vegan options are limited to junk foods which are less healthy than the animal products on offer (I'm not talking about bacon, but something like fish or low fat dairy yogurt). The reality is that in practical daily life you will not be at home all the time making your own food, and you will inevitably come across instances where you end up eating a junk food meal on ethical grounds if you are actually vegan when there probably was a healthier alternative available that had some small amount of animal products in it. In no sense would we want to describe that behavior as vegan, and it would just confuse people.

NonZeroSum wrote: Mon Aug 28, 2017 9:47 pm We shouldn't ignore it entirely, that's the point, it sets a standard by which we shouldn't feel ok about just sitting back and putting our feet up and getting round to it later.
You're not putting your feet back; you're working on something else that's more pressing. If people are putting their feet back, they should be doing something instead.
User avatar
NonZeroSum
Master of the Forum
Posts: 1159
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: North Wales, UK

Re: On the Limitations of "Veganism"

Post by NonZeroSum »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Aug 29, 2017 5:28 pm
I think we've gone as far and beyond what can be said about our preference for different terms, you think veganism is the perfect transmitter of consequentialist interests, you don't think rule based anti-ableism is useful according to how you think the majority define it. I think veganism came out of vegeterianism and is a fine descriptive tool but doesn't fit neatly as a pillar of my virtue/nihilist philosophy, anti-speciesist liberation does.

I'll be on discord for a while if you want to talk live to clear up any confusion quicker.
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: On the Limitations of "Veganism"

Post by brimstoneSalad »

NonZeroSum wrote: Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:43 pm you think veganism is the perfect transmitter of consequentialist interests,
I don't agree with that. I don't know what's perfect.
I err on the side of the coiner of a term, and those who identify with it most strongly/passionately and before we go changing definitions we need very compelling arguments and empirical evidence.

Personally, I think we need more terms, not fewer. We need vegetarian, freegan, ostrovegan, vegan at home (we need a unique term for this really), beegan, etc. We need a proliferation of terms to back up a proliferation of simple concepts to give people choices so they don't see it as an all or nothing, but also to encourage learning about the nuances and different perspectives so they can find something that fits them. People are more likely to learn and understand these concepts when they're neatly categorized and labeled. If we just say "vegan" and hide these things inside, most people will stop there, generalize (as humans do) and not learn more. It's best these other things aren't packed inside vegan but left to influence people without that baggage.

Generalizing "Vegan" to apply to more people is, I think, the last thing we should do. I don't mean to create division in community, but express semantically the diversity that's already there. I don't think there's any reason or benefit to all flying the same flag, although we should be allies.
NonZeroSum wrote: Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:43 pm you don't think rule based anti-ableism is useful according to how you think the majority define it.
I would be glad to be corrected and shown a consensus on ableism that isn't opposed to considering different levels of sentience (which they can agree is closely related to intelligence and IQ) as having different levels of inherent moral value.

If even half of the people who spoke on ableism in a semi-professional capacity accepted that as a non-ableist metric of moral value I could agree that this is a useful thing to push for.

I would also want to see that they accepted pragmatic limits on the expense of enabling people, but I would agree that's probably an easier argument.
NonZeroSum wrote: Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:43 pm I'll be on discord for a while if you want to talk live to clear up any confusion quicker.
Sorry for my slow replies. I haven't been at the computer much this week.
Post Reply