Are there any limits for 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.
juansero29
Newbie
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat May 05, 2018 4:27 am
Location: Far, far away

Are there any limits for veganism?

Post by juansero29 »

I would want to go into a deeper discussion about the balance between practicality and veganism, and the limits of actions we do for reducing suffering (if there are any). We often use the argument of there being a lot of "vegan" (as for items not containing any animal products) alternatives to all food products and clothes we buy, which is true in most parts of the world. But what if I can't easily buy them for a matter of practicality or financing even when it is possible to do it? To be clear about my definition of veganism: it is a lifestyle in which the human being pretends to generate, financiate, and legalize the least possible amount of suffering.

But, does practicality have a say in the limits I draw for my vegan-related actions? For example, if I cannot easily buy a piece of wood that causes zero suffering in my geographical zone or because it is expensive, does this cancel out the fact that I buy for practicality a piece of wood which has contributed to the suffering of X animal in a forest or a Y sweatshop worker in China?

Do vegans take for granted the suffering caused by buying smartphones/computers, clothes, electronic gadgets, wood-made items and other products that can cause, for example, suffering for workers, or suffering for animals by destroying the environment around them while still being "vegan" (not containing any animal related stuff) products?

How can we reduce/stop this practice if there are few or zero options out there to buy these non-suffering causing products in a better way?

Is it incoherent to buy suffering-causing items that don't contain any animal products while still being vegan?

Do vegans arbitrarily draw a line in a point from which they won't care about the suffering caused to some entities any more? If it is the case, is that morally incoherent/incorrect?

To be clear, I'm not saying these questions would endorse being a meat eater or buying animal products. I have read the "being vegan and buying from sweatshops is better than not being vegan and buying from sweatshops" argument which I agree 100% with.

I have also read the "buying from sweatshops doesn't invalidate being vegan as it doesn't invalidate being against racism or sexism either" argument, which I don't agree with that much. As a matter of fact, it does invalidate being vegan in my definition of veganism. This is because buying from sweatshops causes suffering (workers suffering), and the whole purpose of my veganism is causing the least suffering possible. While being against sexism or racism doesn't directly interfere with buying from sweatshops.

I'm doing my best at reducing suffering by avoiding to finance this suffering-causing products whenever I can, but up to what extent should I take it to be coherent with my thoughts?

TLDR; I'm just wondering if there are any limits to the actions we take when it becomes not practical at all or financially challenging to try and reduce suffering in all the products we buy and if this would make for an incoherence in the vegan morality.

This is my first post and I hope to have a good discussion about this with you guys. I'm actually a vegetarian diet-wise slowly transitioning to a complete vegan diet but I like to consider myself as a person who tries to reduce suffering around me in anyway possible for all animals (and humans are scientifically animals). Whether this is being vegan or not is another discussion I try to buy as little as possible suffering causing products as I can, but sometimes, financing or practicality makes it really hard or expensive, even when possible, to buy certain products that way. Is that incoherent with my principles?

Thanks for taking the time to read.
User avatar
Lay Vegan
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Are there any limits for veganism?

Post by Lay Vegan »

juansero29 wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 5:56 am To be clear about my definition of veganism: it is a lifestyle in which the human being pretends to generate, financiate, and legalize the least possible amount of suffering.
This is probably the most intellectually dishonest interpretation of veganism I have ever seen. It would incredibly condescending and asinine of anyone to claim that they can do absolutely nothing more to increase the well-being of animals. If this is how you understand the philosophical integrity of the movement, I’m not sure why you would ever aspire to stop purchasing and eating animal products.

Let’s go over the basics:
The Vegan Society wrote: Veganism is 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.
Veganism is a way of living which seeks to reduce animal suffering as far as is reasonable and practicable. However, living vegan is neither practicable nor reasonable for many people, and that’s understandable. Some people are subjected to living in food deserts, and do not have access to facilities like grocery stores, farmers’ markets, supermarkets etc. that offer vegan-friendly foods. Some people have to juggle social obstacles, and are at risk of alienating themselves from their friends and families. Still, others simply don’t have a reliable income, and must eat what is given to them. Oh yeah, there’s also that nasty 68% of the world who live in third world countries, people who do not have the technology or resources to sustain themselves entirely on plants.


This kind of all-or-nothing dogmatic approach to veganism is counterproductive and quite frankly, rather childish. Let’s also address the elephant in the room; contrary to what many people think, veganism is not the only, or even the best way to reduce animal suffering.
Let Them Eat Meat wrote:But the main problem is that veganism is not the only or even the best way to reduce suffering. And since vegans don’t feel a moral obligation to take suffering reduction to its logical conclusion (suicide, or, to be less demanding, possibly freeganism), that means any spot we pick on the harm reduction continuum will be arbitrary. If vegans don’t have an obligation to be freegan, since there is no need to maximize harm reduction, then vegetarians don’t need to be vegan, humane meat eaters don’t need to be vegetarian, and so on.

For most of us vegans, veganism is simply one effective and practicable way to reduce suffering toward animals. It’s not the best we can do, but given our actual circumstances and limitations, it’s what’s practicable. For others, vegetarianism or reducitarianism might be a more noble goal. The point is, what is most “practicable and possible” can differ from person to person. And this highlights why veganism/animal rights can never be all-or-nothing.
juansero29 wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 5:56 am But, does practicality have a say in the limits I draw for my vegan-related actions? For example, if I cannot easily buy a piece of wood that causes zero suffering in my geographical zone or because it is expensive, does this cancel out the fact that I buy for practicality a piece of wood which has contributed to the suffering of X animal in a forest or a Y sweatshop worker in China?
If by “cancel out” you mean can such a person continue to call himself vegan, then my answer would be yes. This person would still be vegan under any commonly accepted definition. In fact, the word “practicable” is in the very definition of vegan. Let’s imagine that a vegan is given 2 choices of wood to pick from; X wood that causes no suffering, or Y wood that causes a degree of suffering to animals. The vegan would prefer to pick Y wood, but given its unreasonably high price, chooses to purchase X wood to avoid dipping into his rent money and risking eviction. This person could still be considered vegan, according to the Vegan Society’s dentition. They are making the decision that is most reasonable and practicable. There are grey areas, not everything is black and white.
juansero29 wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 5:56 am How can we reduce/stop this practice if there are few or zero options out there to buy these non-suffering causing products in a better way?
We can reduce harm by purchasing products that are less harmful to animals. It could be a shift from purchasing conventional eggs to eating eggs from backyard hens to eating no eggs at all. In addition, choosing to purchase fewer eggs or less meat, and encouraging others to do the same, can have significant impact. Even raising/slaughtering or hunting your own animals for food is comparatively more ethical than funding a massive industry that legalizes and normalizes serious abuses. Another way to help would be lobbying for corporate changes in business practices toward animal welfare. Anyone, regardless of diets or labels, can help to do this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBmbVphZKYc
juansero29 wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 5:56 am Is it incoherent to buy suffering-causing items that don't contain any animal products while still being vegan?
This depends, could it have otherwise been avoided? Was it justified to purchase the suffering-causing item? Did the overall benefits outweigh the overall harm? If you purchase suffering-causing items out of laziness or pure convenience, this would be hard to justify. Purchasing such an item to avoid greater harm however, would be a valid justification.
juansero29 wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 5:56 am I have also read the "buying from sweatshops doesn't invalidate being vegan as it doesn't invalidate being against racism or sexism either" argument, which I don't agree with that much. As a matter of fact, it does invalidate being vegan in my definition of veganism. This is because buying from sweatshops causes suffering (workers suffering), and the whole purpose of my veganism is causing the least suffering possible. While being against sexism or racism doesn't directly interfere with buying from sweatshops.
What are your thoughts on this economic case in favor of sweatshops? They may do more good than harm, relative to the available alternatives. https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/internat ... better-off


The Vegan Society’s definition does not specify human or nonhuman animals, but it would require an extreme amount of mental gymnastics to arrive at a philosophy that is only morally concerned with *nonhuman* animals, and disregards humans. I would agree that intentionally causing suffering toward humans goes against vegan ethics. While veganism is not primarily focused on human suffering, it would be counter-intuitive to strive to reduce animal suffering while disregarding the well-being of humans.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Are there any limits for veganism?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Lay Vegan wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 1:52 pm
juansero29 wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 5:56 am To be clear about my definition of veganism: it is a lifestyle in which the human being pretends to generate, financiate, and legalize the least possible amount of suffering.
This is probably the most intellectually dishonest interpretation of veganism I have ever seen. It would incredibly condescending and asinine of anyone to claim that they can do absolutely nothing more to increase the well-being of animals. If this is how you understand the philosophical integrity of the movement, I’m not sure why you would ever aspire to stop purchasing and eating animal products.
I think he may have used the word "pretend" by accident, and meant "aspires" or something along those lines? Pretends definitely suggests it's all meaningless.

@juansero29
TLDR; I'm just wondering if there are any limits to the actions we take when it becomes not practical at all or financially challenging to try and reduce suffering in all the products we buy and if this would make for an incoherence in the vegan morality.
Skimmed the post, I may be able to respond more later, but this is a good question. When it comes to criminal law, matters of practicability and possibility are a large part of the justice system; we never want to find somebody culpable for something that person couldn't help. The same goes for veganism.

We don't want "vegan nazis" judging people by unreasonable standards of perfection, but at the same time there is a point where people are just making excuses. For the time being, you just have to try your best and try to be honest and unbiased about what you can do, and try not to let yourself get away with things just because they're a little easier, but also don't punish yourself for doing a small wrong that's almost impossible to avoid.
esquizofrenico
Junior Member
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:54 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Are there any limits for veganism?

Post by esquizofrenico »

Yes, I think he has fallen in a false friend, in spanish "pretender" means "to intend".
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Are there any limits for veganism?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

esquizofrenico wrote: Mon May 07, 2018 12:47 am Yes, I think he has fallen in a false friend, in spanish "pretender" means "to intend".
That makes much more sense.

The spirit behind it just got lost in translation. I hope he wasn't scared off by the understandable reaction to the mistake. I think the confusion stemmed from his English otherwise being very good, so it wasn't obvious that he's not a native English speaker (which should be a compliment).
Maybe I should send him a message. No need to be embarrassed about a small mistake in one of the 3+ languages you speak.
juansero29
Newbie
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat May 05, 2018 4:27 am
Location: Far, far away

Re: Are there any limits for veganism?

Post by juansero29 »

Lay Vegan wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 1:52 pm
juansero29 wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 5:56 am To be clear about my definition of veganism: it is a lifestyle in which the human being pretends to generate, financiate, and legalize the least possible amount of suffering.
This is probably the most intellectually dishonest interpretation of veganism I have ever seen. It would incredibly condescending and asinine of anyone to claim that they can do absolutely nothing more to increase the well-being of animals. If this is how you understand the philosophical integrity of the movement, I’m not sure why you would ever aspire to stop purchasing and eating animal products.
I'm sorry, I should have paid more attention to the words I chose for the definition I built the whole discussion upon. It was definitely a false friend as @esquizofrenico suggested. What I meant by "pretend" was "really tries to" or "expects to", even "aspires" or "intends to" would have had more proximity with what I really meant.

Anyway, you have open some new paths in your comment I would really like to discuss/respond to some of the points you reached.

Lay Vegan wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 1:52 pm
Let’s go over the basics:
The Vegan Society wrote: Veganism is 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.
Veganism is a way of living which seeks to reduce animal suffering as far as is reasonable and practicable. However, living vegan is neither practicable nor reasonable for many people, and that’s understandable. Some people are subjected to living in food deserts, and do not have access to facilities like grocery stores, farmers’ markets, supermarkets etc. that offer vegan-friendly foods. Some people have to juggle social obstacles, and are at risk of alienating themselves from their friends and families. Still, others simply don’t have a reliable income, and must eat what is given to them. Oh yeah, there’s also that nasty 68% of the world who live in third world countries, people who do not have the technology or resources to sustain themselves entirely on plants.

This kind of all-or-nothing dogmatic approach to veganism is counterproductive and quite frankly, rather childish.

Let’s also address the elephant in the room; contrary to what many people think, veganism is not the only, or even the best way to reduce animal suffering.
Let Them Eat Meat wrote:But the main problem is that veganism is not the only or even the best way to reduce suffering. And since vegans don’t feel a moral obligation to take suffering reduction to its logical conclusion (suicide, or, to be less demanding, possibly freeganism), that means any spot we pick on the harm reduction continuum will be arbitrary. If vegans don’t have an obligation to be freegan, since there is no need to maximize harm reduction, then vegetarians don’t need to be vegan, humane meat eaters don’t need to be vegetarian, and so on.
For most of us vegans, veganism is simply one effective and practicable way to reduce suffering toward animals. It’s not the best we can do, but given our actual circumstances and limitations, it’s what’s practicable. For others, vegetarianism or reducitarianism might be a more noble goal. The point is, what is most “practicable and possible” can differ from person to person. And this highlights why veganism/animal rights can never be all-or-nothing.
I agree with this. My approach is not the all-or-nothing, as you said it's counterproductive and has little to no sense at all. There are more less-reasonable ways to cause zero suffering, like suicide or starvation. But as I think it's clear for both of us, it is a matter of effectiveness, practicality and reasoning.

However, even when we choose the "how much suffering I will cause" spot arbitrarily depending on our personal limitations, I think that it really does matter where we put this spot on. The fact that we don't have an obligation to go further into the chain, from vegan to freegan, or from vegetarian to vegan, doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire being there, from my point of view. And this aspiration should really be pushed on by actions and convictions, again, while keeping the effective, practical and reasonable aspect of it all.
Lay Vegan wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 1:52 pm
juansero29 wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 5:56 am But, does practicality have a say in the limits I draw for my vegan-related actions? For example, if I cannot easily buy a piece of wood that causes zero suffering in my geographical zone or because it is expensive, does this cancel out the fact that I buy for practicality a piece of wood which has contributed to the suffering of X animal in a forest or a Y sweatshop worker in China?
If by “cancel out” you mean can such a person continue to call himself vegan, then my answer would be yes. This person would still be vegan under any commonly accepted definition. In fact, the word “practicable” is in the very definition of vegan. Let’s imagine that a vegan is given 2 choices of wood to pick from; X wood that causes no suffering, or Y wood that causes a degree of suffering to animals. The vegan would prefer to pick Y wood, but given its unreasonably high price, chooses to purchase X wood to avoid dipping into his rent money and risking eviction. This person could still be considered vegan, according to the Vegan Society’s dentition. They are making the decision that is most reasonable and practicable. There are grey areas, not everything is black and white.
juansero29 wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 5:56 am Is it incoherent to buy suffering-causing items that don't contain any animal products while still being vegan?
This depends, could it have otherwise been avoided? Was it justified to purchase the suffering-causing item? Did the overall benefits outweigh the overall harm? If you purchase suffering-causing items out of laziness or pure convenience, this would be hard to justify. Purchasing such an item to avoid greater harm however, would be a valid justification.
I just really liked reading this. There are a lot people out there who think all vegans are all-or-nothing vegans, but also some vegans who don't seem to recognize these grey areas in which you really have to put things in a balance in order to make a choice. There's also an importance in not basing practicality or reasoning on what you mentioned: laziness, pure convenience, or plainly pleasure. I don't think either of these three are justifiable.
Lay Vegan wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 1:52 pm
juansero29 wrote: Sat May 05, 2018 5:56 am I have also read the "buying from sweatshops doesn't invalidate being vegan as it doesn't invalidate being against racism or sexism either" argument, which I don't agree with that much. As a matter of fact, it does invalidate being vegan in my definition of veganism. This is because buying from sweatshops causes suffering (workers suffering), and the whole purpose of my veganism is causing the least suffering possible. While being against sexism or racism doesn't directly interfere with buying from sweatshops.
What are your thoughts on this economic case in favor of sweatshops? They may do more good than harm, relative to the available alternatives. https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/internat ... better-off

The Vegan Society’s definition does not specify human or nonhuman animals, but it would require an extreme amount of mental gymnastics to arrive at a philosophy that is only morally concerned with *nonhuman* animals, and disregards humans. I would agree that intentionally causing suffering toward humans goes against vegan ethics. While veganism is not primarily focused on human suffering, it would be counter-intuitive to strive to reduce animal suffering while disregarding the well-being of humans.
I really enjoyed reading this article, it puts things in a contrast I had not visualized before. What I got out of this is: we should not be against sweatshops but in favor of good working conditions and fair salaries. It would be quite challenging however to measure precisely enough the "more good than harm" tied to each product I buy.

So that leaves myself in a weird limbo: should I avoid buying products from sweatshops? -> no, because then workers will probably suffer way more if the companies didn't have money to hire them. Should I then buy products from sweatshops and encourage those workers to keep their jobs? -> no, because they shouldn't be working 80 hours a week, with shitty salaries and horrible health issues caused by those massive shifts.

Should I do something so that their works conditions get way better? -> of course, but, what is it? It's not buying from them since that would merely give these companies money to continue their way of doing things. It's more likely to be supporting campaigns and programs that encourage these people, like the article says, to work in different countries and give them more opportunities. But how to do this from the standpoint of a consumer? Should this problems also belong to the vegan cause? And finally, what do you think of the "being vegan and buying from sweatshops is better than not being vegan and buying from sweatshops" argument?

Thanks for your very detailed answer, you have really made a good contribution to my thought process.
juansero29
Newbie
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat May 05, 2018 4:27 am
Location: Far, far away

Re: Are there any limits for veganism?

Post by juansero29 »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Sun May 06, 2018 4:25 am
@juansero29
TLDR; I'm just wondering if there are any limits to the actions we take when it becomes not practical at all or financially challenging to try and reduce suffering in all the products we buy and if this would make for an incoherence in the vegan morality.
Skimmed the post, I may be able to respond more later, but this is a good question. When it comes to criminal law, matters of practicability and possibility are a large part of the justice system; we never want to find somebody culpable for something that person couldn't help. The same goes for veganism.

We don't want "vegan nazis" judging people by unreasonable standards of perfection, but at the same time there is a point where people are just making excuses. For the time being, you just have to try your best and try to be honest and unbiased about what you can do, and try not to let yourself get away with things just because they're a little easier, but also don't punish yourself for doing a small wrong that's almost impossible to avoid.
That's some kind words :) I agree there's that point of excuses in which a lot of people fall without even realizing. And the word you use, "aspiring" is really what makes veganism an effective and probably the best reasonable way of reducing suffering. We shouldn't judge people by unreasonable standards of perfection, however I think all people should aspire to be at those standards and do actions related to these aspirations.
User avatar
Lay Vegan
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Are there any limits for veganism?

Post by Lay Vegan »

juansero29 wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 7:35 am I'm sorry, I should have paid more attention to the words I chose for the definition I built the whole discussion upon. It was definitely a false friend as @esquizofrenico suggested.
Apologies for the misunderstanding, I pm'd you. :)
juansero29 wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 7:35 am The fact that we don't have an obligation to go further into the chain, from vegan to freegan, or from vegetarian to vegan, doesn't mean we shouldn't aspire being there, from my point of view. And this aspiration should really be pushed on by actions and convictions, again, while keeping the effective, practical and reasonable aspect of it all.
Agreed.
juansero29 wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 7:35 am Should this problems also belong to the vegan cause?

From an activist’s standpoint, no I do not think this should be a primary objective of our movement. Single-issue campaigns tend to attract a larger base of support and resources than intersectional campaigns. Adding an ever-growing list of demands until people sign-on could seriously hurt our outreach. https://faunalytics.org/intersectional- ... ess-money/

That being said, vegans shouldn’t dismiss human rights & welfare causes, because they too are pressing issues of our time. And it is possible to respect and even support other causes without harming our own activism.

@brimstoneSalad Do we have an article in the wiki on this?
It would be nice to link there when we have discussion on this topic. Maybe even give advice on how to actively support other causes without muddling the integrity of our own movement?

juansero29 wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 7:35 am But how to do this from the standpoint of a consumer?

You said it well. While sweatshops are comparatively less harmful than alternatives like prostitution or subsistence farming, I’d still avoid purchasing clothes made in sweatshops, when possible. I’m no economist, so I don’t have a clear answer, but I suppose businesses would need a strong economic incentive to improve working conditions. It could be a combination of consumer boycotts and “smear campaigns” (putting that company’s reputation on the line) that motivate businesses to increase workers’ wages and living conditions. Even the most powerful multinational corporations (like Nike) are not immune to this. Though as we discussed, the average consumer than help just by *not purchasing* the products.

juansero29 wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 7:35 am And finally, what do you think of the "being vegan and buying from sweatshops is better than not being vegan and buying from sweatshops" argument?

Both animal agriculture and sweatshops are harmful, due to the level of suffering they entail. So a vegan who buys from sweatshops is probably causing less harm than an omnivore who buys from sweatshops, assuming that the omnivore purchases his meat from animals raised in factory farmed-conditions.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Are there any limits for veganism?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Lay Vegan wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 6:50 pm @brimstoneSalad Do we have an article in the wiki on this?
It would be nice to link there when we have discussion on this topic. Maybe even give advice on how to actively support other causes without muddling the integrity of our own movement?
That would be great. Could you start one? Right now I'm crazy busy, should calm down in a week or so then might get busy again.
I can contribute to it but I don't think I have time to start/outline one.

Lay Vegan wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 6:50 pm
juansero29 wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 7:35 am But how to do this from the standpoint of a consumer?

You said it well. While sweatshops are comparatively less harmful than alternatives like prostitution or subsistence farming, I’d still avoid purchasing clothes made in sweatshops, when possible.
I would say just be frugal, and spend your money on effective charities.

I actually think sweatshop goods are superior because you're sending money to people who need it more (despite the company profiting too: that's neither good nor bad, it's a corporation, blinded to anything but profit for the most part). But even if sweat shops were worse, paying half as much and then donating the rest to charity is STILL going to be better.

The same doesn't apply to vegan mock-meats, though. E.g. paying half as much for a hamburger rather than an impossible burger than donating the difference to charity may not be better. Buying vegan mock-meats is tremendously important to signal to the market the demand and inspire investment and product development, as well as help drive the price down.
It's not clear that a dollar to impossible foods or beyond meat is less effective than a dollar to mercy for animals or another charity.
Lay Vegan wrote: Tue May 08, 2018 6:50 pmIt could be a combination of consumer boycotts and “smear campaigns” (putting that company’s reputation on the line) that motivate businesses to increase workers’ wages and living conditions. Even the most powerful multinational corporations (like Nike) are not immune to this. Though as we discussed, the average consumer than help just by *not purchasing* the products.
Boycotts only work reliably if they're well organized, or broadly against a specific ingredient which has alternatives by signaling market demand on a large scale (like we're seeing with palm oil). Sweat shop conditions are too complicated to track or educate on.

Smear campaigns might help, but I don't think it matters if you buy the product or not in those cases except for during an active smear campaign (if something comes out in the news about apple, wait a couple months to purchase anything from them unless you see them address the problem).
Otherwise, just broadly boycotting sweatshop produced goods won't motivate companies to change, it'll just reduce the number of jobs they provide.

It's not like animal agriculture which is pretty much all bad (and definitely a net negative), sweat shops do good too, so we need reform rather than just reduction/abolition.

These kinds of reforms need to be legal in nature. The consumer can't do as much as the voter can.
User avatar
Lay Vegan
Senior Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2017 8:05 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Are there any limits for veganism?

Post by Lay Vegan »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 2:30 am That would be great. Could you start one? Right now I'm crazy busy, should calm down in a week or so then might get busy again.
I can contribute to it but I don't think I have time to start/outline one.
I've started an outline. I'll work more on it later. wiki/index.php/Intersectional_Veganism_ ... l_Veganism

There's not much substance yet, so feel free to add to it or edit its organization. I would like to share a clip or screenshot of one of Unnatural Vegan's videos. This one in particular; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdPxaYmT6QI&t=550s Given that her playlist is one of the most comprehensive looks at the intersectionalist approach, I'd definitely want to send readers her way. Should I contact her for permission to share it on the wiki?
brimstoneSalad wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 2:30 am I actually think sweatshop goods are superior because you're sending money to people who need it more (despite the company profiting too: that's neither good nor bad, it's a corporation, blinded to anything but profit for the most part). But even if sweat shops were worse, paying half as much and then donating the rest to charity is STILL going to be better.
I assume you mean "superior" relative to prostitution? Or subsistence farming?
brimstoneSalad wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 2:30 am It's not clear that a dollar to impossible foods or beyond meat is less effective than a dollar to mercy for animals or another charity.
Well it depends on which charity you're donating to. If it can barely cover the expense of its own fundraising efforts (paying staff, utilities, rent space etc.) and directs only a small portion of its income toward charitable programs, then it probably isn't worth your money.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Wed May 09, 2018 2:30 am It's not like animal agriculture which is pretty much all bad (and definitely a net negative), sweat shops do good too, so we need reform rather than just reduction/abolition.
100% agreed there. In fact, a reduction or abolition of sweat shops could lead to greater unemployment in poor areas and in increase in even riskier jobs (women/girls turning to prostitution). In case you haven't peeped, what are your thoughts on this economic case for sweatshops? http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/ ... shops.html Sweatshop workers in the poorest countries make 3 times their national average income.
Post Reply