carnap wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pm
brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:49 pm
Hard to fight socially. It may not be worth complaining about organic things being non-vegan because it's more likely to confuse people and not worth the extended argument about how organic food is not healthier nor is its production better for the environment.
Its also hard to fight against the use and consumption of animal byproducts. If one is going to provide practical reasons for not focusing on organic, why wouldn't the same practical issues apply to animal byproducts?
They do, and that's why we don't care very much about animal byproducts here. We are unlikely to tell somebody he or she isn't vegan for not reading a lengthy ingredients list. The small stuff doesn't matter much. Just like we're probably not going to say somebody isn't vegan for eating something organic, maybe unless we're in an argument where the person is claiming organic is good and ignoring the evidence. We're probably more likely to call somebody out on organic due to the pseudoscience, but that's here: in the wild that might not be as productive.
I agree that PETA is probably right on this issue:
https://www.peta.org/living/food/making-transition-vegetarian/ideas-vegetarian-living/tiny-amount-animal-products-food/
However, there is a difference in terms of heuristics that one is much easier in practice to explain than the other.
Even many vegans get very defensive of their organic foods, while nobody is particularly attached to all of these animal byproducts.
Virtually nobody thinks these extensive ingredients list and all of these byproducts are good for the world, but they do think organic is a force for good.
With byproducts it's just the reasonable approach to not wanting to nitpick; not wanting it but not caring enough to worry about it. With organic people are actively advocating FOR it and choosing it over alternatives; there's emotional investment there, rather than just a question of practicality.
carnap wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmHaving to nitpick every packaged food you buy for traces off animal ingredients is a big deal.
Sure, and not very many vegans are being critical of other vegans for not doing that. PETA, one of the largest animal rights organizations in the world, even actively encourages people NOT to do that.
The trouble in terms of certification of something as vegan is that such a heuristic is extremely difficult.
Having to take into account farming methods, when there's very little information on that available, would also be extremely difficult.
It's easy to say animal derived = not vegan for labeling purposes.
carnap wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmMy point here is that there doesn't appear to be anything morally relevant to the avoidance of byproducts while the acceptance of organic, its an arbitrary aspect of veganism based on its history that is dogmatically maintained today.
Then avoid organic and ignore the micro-ingredients in foods if you want to?
The reason we have the labeling standards we do is probably a combination of simplicity and the irrational pro-organic bias based on pseudo-scientific beliefs.
carnap wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmIf the definitions aren't "spread randomly" then you should be able to explain what is core and that should, in fact, be the definition of the term.
Not if they're plotted on a spectrum. I can only define the axis for you. It ranges from one to another.
carnap wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmPhilosophers, mathematicians, etc all provide clear definitions for abstract notions all the time. So the lack of such a definition for "veganism" indicates, if anything, a lack of philosophic rigor....at least to me.
The common definition of "vegan" is not philosophically rigorous, because it also defines a loose threshold of practice, so there are a lot of potential contradictions between letter and spirit.
This has been a problem in discourse, and among vegans arguing what is or isn't vegan.
In order to make it rigorous, it must be considered two different things: vegan as practice in terms of a simple heuristic that rejects things that are direct animal products (which is of course somewhat arbitrary), and veganism in its associated philosophical principle which just defines a general consequentialist ethical position of reducing harm (one meant to be generally compatible with many metaethical systems)... which doesn't always mean strict vegan in practice. It's possible that accompanying empirical beliefs can make the latter come to a conclusion similar to the former, but it's not likely for fringe cases like oysters and freeganism.
The principle is not a complete philosophy in itself, it's a statement that is broadly applicable. It's intentionally vague in that sense to not exclude anybody (or to exclude as few as possible).
"Carnism" is actually much more rigorously defined, and if we had a do-over we might define the vegan philosophy as a rejection of carnism.
But of course not all people who happen to be eating meat are carnists, because there's no aspect of practice there.
"Sentientist" is probably better.
"Speciesist" is also more rigorous, but doesn't imply anything about practice at all. Somebody can be non-speciesist and eat meat.
If you want clear conclusions and rigor, you really need to deal with ethical systems directly, talking about various formulations of utilitarianism etc.
carnap wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmThere is also a notion of "core Christianity" which is widely discussed in Christianity theology. Having sects of a core ideology doesn't exempt one from providing a definition for the core ideology.
There are
attempts at it. But they would exclude MANY people who consider themselves Christian, and that's a problem.
carnap wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmNow there are people that will suggest religions are a sort of heuristic to the "divine", but these people are making a clear distinction between the heuristic (religion) and the goal of the heuristic (the divine) and their position is directly at odds with the religions themselves.
Like the distinction I said you'd need to make above, if you want rigor.
carnap wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmSo suggesting that veganism is a heuristic is just fine, but suggesting that its a heuristic and a moral position is conceptually flawed.
And yet it is both, because of how the definition is framed. It outlines a general consequentialist moral position, and then it talks about a lifestyle heuristic. Note the "and".
"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; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
carnap wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmBut if veganism is a heuristic then one needs explain what it is a heuristic towards.
I think that's done in the definition.
It explains the goal, which is reducing harm to animals, and the heuristic.
Could the definition be more clear? Absolutely.
carnap wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pm
Its the same definition which just describes a lifestyle, prefixing it with "A philosophy" doesn't change anything. The point is the definition describes a lifestyle and not "a philosophy".
It's a poorly written definition, but it's in there.
"and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment."
Clearly consequentialist, looking to benefit humans, animals & the environment.
carnap wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmIn this case what veganism meant "in dietary terms" came first and that indicates what veganism is really about.
When it was only a handful of people?
No it doesn't, it indicates what the easiest consensus was to come to because those people were in disagreement on how to frame the philosophical aspect.
Veganism historically arose from vegetarians rejecting dairy and eggs due to ethical concerns. A lot of it was tied to ahimsa in spirituality, which is also a philosophical position.
carnap wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmThe moral stance of vegans seems to differ significantly from person to person, the only common core is that they practice a vegan lifestyle.
There are "dietary vegans" who have no moral position and are just doing it for expected health benefits.
I'm not sure if it's worth arguing that they're actually vegetarians (of the not ovo-lacto variety).
carnap wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmFor example some vegans believe in a sort of consequentialism while others uphold a rights-based approach (i.e., deontology) and these are philosophically rather different moral stances to have.
It is difficult and perhaps impossible to reconcile a deontological approach with the definition of vegan, but deontology can't even be reconciled with itself or any kind of practice, so they presumably have no problems contradicting themselves.
carnap wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmAnd I think the claim that *ALL* the largest and growing voices follow what you suggest is wrong,
The internal culture of PETA has been moving that way for a while (old deontological web material they had has been disappearing), and veganism is gaining traction in effective altruism.
carnap wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmthere are are number of abolitionist vegans that are popular. For example DxE is large and growing and is oriented more long abolitionist lines than pragmatic ones.
I think those are just a visible minority due to how absurd they are.
If DxE is really growing as you say that could be a problem unless their culture is shifting to a more evidence based approach of effective activism as PETA has been doing; that could just be a process of growth and maturity for these organizations.
carnap wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmAlso if its just the definition employed on this forum and not representative of veganism as a whole in what sense is it "the" philosophical definition but instead the definition of whoever runs the forum?
Because non-rigorous definitions need not apply.
I think the full vegan society definition I cited is fairly rigorous, it's just not very well written which is different, and it references two distinct things (the philosophy and the practice/heuristic).
carnap wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmbrimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 3:49 pm
Kosher symbols are small and not emphasized on products, therefore Jews are poorly regarded by the public at large?
Pew says otherwise.
Never did I suggest such a thing, I provided research that looks at how the general public views the "vegan" label.
You argued that companies are trying to hide the label because it's poorly viewed, but the same argument would apply to the kosher label.
It being small and often on the back or in the corner is not any kind of evidence for public perception. If they were that worried about it they wouldn't put it on at all, because vegans are a very very small percentage of consumers who will buy it anyway because of the ingredients.
Beyond meat is the only one I can think of that avoids it, and a large part of that is probably due to their appeal to investors and trying to reach another market. It's an interesting approach, but hardly evidence when the vegan label is growing more than ever on other products who obviously are not that concerned.
carnap wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmNo, again, I provided research as "proof" that veganism is badly regarded.
What's the research? Because somebody tried veganism and doesn't want to try again doesn't mean that vegans, vegan products, or veganism is badly regarded by that person. People who tried vegan also apparently eat less meat afterwards and keep eating some of the new vegan products they were introduced to and liked. It's very plausible that they have a higher opinion of vegans (in the sense of the difficulties they had).
Can you quote and link to some actual evidence for what you claim? Is there a pew survey I'm not aware of?
Because Dr Oz just released his "Pegan" diet based on paleo and vegan both trending (which is basically a rebranding of the Mediterranean diet).
Anecdotally, vegan is showing up a lot, and there are more products than ever. The meat and dairy alternative markets are both exploding.
carnap wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmWhy would the ratio be small?
Because 37% are SO positive that they want to try again.
carnap wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmAll we know from the study is that 63% had no interest in trying again, what the overall disposition of this group wasn't studied.
You say this, then you make ridiculous assumptions:
carnap wrote: ↑Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:51 pmSince they don't want to try again it seems clear that their view is is negative
I've met ex-vegans who didn't want to try again, and they were positive about veganism for the world, just thought it wasn't for them because they couldn't do it, craved meat, or they thought their bodies needed it specifically. They were positive and congratulative/admirative of others being vegan.
Being a non-vegan, you probably haven't received personal praise from nearly every ex-vegan you've met for being vegan.
Anecdotally, I can say they're almost all still positive about veganism for the world, animals, etc. but just very down on their own ability to do it.
The survey does nothing to contradict that, and to me says that an astoundingly large number want to try again.