On the Limitations of "Veganism"

[NonZeroSum]

Instead of pretending vegans are one cohesive group this would highlight the different advocacy approaches and make it harder to stereotype if anything.

Personally, I think we need more terms, not fewer.
. . .
Sorry for my slow replies. I haven't been at the computer much this week.

No problem, I just haven't disagreed with the sentiment of many of your posts so it can feel a bit dizzying dancing on a pinhead of difference. I was never arguing for no philosophy, just the hilighting of different foundations. I'm really happy with people using vegan because its the most marketable term for no use as far as practicable, which I agree to be consistent does incorporate ethics.

Anti-abelism like intersectionality might be too corrupted by a majority with an unsophisticated understand of equality to hold onto, which could mean jumping ship and starting again with new terms that are more loyal to the original sentiment of those theories:

Yes to Intersectionality, Boo to Intersectional Vegans
https://strivingwithsystems.com/2017/05/10/yes-to-intersectionality-boo-to-intersectional-vegans/

You say those theories are toxic at their root, I don't agree with the branches or prescriptions you point to and think it's right for putting the lifting up of everyone's character virtues at it's centre and optimistic nihilism as the obvious truth of our reality.

[Steve Wagar]

This comes down to an argument about definitions, and it is a problem that vegan means different things to different people. I recognize that the people who coined it were focused on animal welfare. I became a vegan out of concern for the environment, as animal agriculture is killing the planet. I am also concerned about health, though not quite enough for that concern to make me 100% vegan. I am not unconcerned about animal welfare, but I see mistreatment arising from mass production and not from the principle of using animals for products. As a fruitarian, I would not recommend people eat much if any animal food, but I don't agree with the argument that we must respect all other species as highly as our own. Intelligence takes humans a lot further than sentience alone, and so it is a much higher ethical bar to respect human life. Provided animals are treated well, killing them for products as needed is not a crime in my eyes.

But back to definitions. While the Vegan Society has their own definition, which is consistent with anti-speciesism, they don't own the language and the predominant usage and understanding of veganism in daily use is "a way of living that excludes, as far as is practicable, all use and consumption of animals and animal products" (your 2nd definition). Most people probably don't even know the anti-speciesism angle, even though it came first.

You can fight the predominant usage if you want, as the Vegan Society does, but I don't think the language will change just because you want it to. I would recommend just accepting the language as it is and when you want to focus on veganism from an anti-speciesism angle just clarify that this is your point.

[brimstoneSalad]

I became a vegan out of concern for the environment, as animal agriculture is killing the planet.

I would say that makes you vegan for ethical reasons. We care about the environment because it affects living things, and drastic changes and severe weather cause suffering to humans and the many animals that make it up. The definition even mentions environment.

I am not unconcerned about animal welfare, but I see mistreatment arising from mass production and not from the principle of using animals for products.

Well, I don't think using animals for products is always exploitation (in terms of unfair use) or cruelty.

"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."
Source (Vegan Society)

Say if we let animals live a long and natural life, and then euthanized them only at the end when they had no more quality of life left (as we'd do for beloved pets, and even family members where it's legal), and then ate their bodies.
We could imagine non-exploitative and non-cruel ways of going about it, I think.

I don't think cruelty is unique to our modern methods, though. Based on developing countries where they still do things the old ways I would say cruelty is quite innate to even ancient practices... maybe even more so, because animal welfare was considered less.
I don't think that applied to all cases, though. Cows in some parts of India, for example, could almost be seen as family members. They had to work, but the exchange could easily have been seen as fair when they were fed, given water, never had to suffer cold winters, were able to socialize and play, and weren't killed when they were no longer useful. The line between exploitation and a mutualistic symbiosis isn't always clear.

Eggs, milk, and labor could all in theory be done this way... as could eating the animal at the end of life.
But I don't think killing animals as soon as they're fat enough to slaughter could qualify. I don't think any human would agree to such a contract, it's safe to assume it's an unfair bargain.

I don't agree with the argument that we must respect all other species as highly as our own. Intelligence takes humans a lot further than sentience alone, and so it is a much higher ethical bar to respect human life.

I don't think anything in the definition suggests that we should. The point is only that there's some respect there, and it's not done without true need. That's why possible and practicable are in there. Sometimes we have to kill animals for human well-being.

Provided animals are treated well, killing them for products as needed is not a crime in my eyes.

The need part, if sincere, is what would justify it. It's important to distinguish that from a want, though.
Causing death of another because you want something that tastes a certain way, when they are other things (and even other delicious things) to eat is very different from causing death for purposes of sustaining your life or relieving human suffering.

But back to definitions. While the Vegan Society has their own definition, which is consistent with anti-speciesism,

I think it can be consistent with anti-speciesism (which doesn't mean humans and non-humans are the same, even anti-speciesists recognize humans are more important than other species, not because they're humans but because they're more sentient), but you don't have to treat it that way. It just means that there's some moral consideration there and that we don't take lives for superficial reasons like taste.

Bear in mind that doesn't mean you would sit in judgement of other people who would do that, or condemn them and declare yourself more moral. It just means you wouldn't kill for taste pleasure personally (for many vegans, it's just against their personal ethics).

Regarding usage:
Predominant usage isn't necessarily correct, particularly when it comes from people outside the group. Atheists may variously (and very popularly, at least until recently by theists) be defined as people who hate god and so lie about believing he doesn't exist and in secret worship Satan. Popularity alone doesn't make a definition accurate, particularly when it ascribes qualities to a group we know to actually exist and have their own opinions about things.

I think most people at least intuitively recognize that "vegan" has an ethical connotation, as evidenced by how quick they are to point out perceived hypocrisy such as with leather shoes. I don't even think "vegan" is considered mere ritual by non-vegans, and I believe the vast majority of self identified vegans report ethical interests (even if they are secondary to health).

[Steve Wagar]

I became a vegan out of concern for the environment, as animal agriculture is killing the planet.

I would say that makes you vegan for ethical reasons. We care about the environment because it affects living things, and drastic changes and severe weather cause suffering to humans and the many animals that make it up. The definition even mentions environment.

The desire to continue to survive is not ethical, merely practical. So our arguments are aligning here for practical reasons only. Does it matter, so long as we agree? Yes, if there comes a point where our views would diverge. My ethics of practicality are based on a holistic view of evolutionary pressures combined with a recognition of sentient and intelligent existence. Being practically-oriented, this means there will be tradeoffs in areas where I see "diminishing returns" where you would remain a purist.

Eggs, milk, and labor could all in theory be done this way... as could eating the animal at the end of life.
But I don't think killing animals as soon as they're fat enough to slaughter could qualify. I don't think any human would agree to such a contract, it's safe to assume it's an unfair bargain.

Your presentation on this is elegant and admirable, and you wouldn't have any problem convincing me to go this way. But the evidence suggests we are atypical. We either need a solution that is compatible with the subconscious desires most people are unable to overcome (e.g. factory-grown meat) or a command economy led by veganists (a direction China is heading in).

The need part, if sincere, is what would justify it. It's important to distinguish that from a want, though.
Causing death of another because you want something that tastes a certain way, when they are other things (and even other delicious things) to eat is very different from causing death for purposes of sustaining your life or relieving human suffering.

I don't know, if a tree falls in a forest (or dies in a slaughter house) and nobody hears it fall (scream), did it make a sound? It has been suggested we might soon be able to emulate people on computers, at which point we could create armies of slaves cloned from the people most skilled at given tasks. If such emulated people (ems) are created and destroyed as needed and don't realize they are being "taken advantage of", is there any harm? Will we have to be careful how many processes we spawn because every one is sacred? Maybe; ethically it probably comes down to whether there is suffering. But practically, it is a difficult problem to get people to take responsibility for all the distant side effects of their actions.

For animals, there can be no doubt what is going on. People were quick to denounce and stop animal cruelty in the case of testing products, because they realized products could be produced without the animal testing and the costs and risks wouldn't skyrocket. But people really like cheap animal products, and they seem inclined to feel it justifies cruelty. To some degree, it does... since the animal agriculture business has all the subsidies, the poorest people ironically often depend on animal products to feed their families and would starve otherwise. This is illogical and could be fixed, but you can't blame the people caught up in it.

But back to definitions. While the Vegan Society has their own definition, which is consistent with anti-speciesism,

I think it can be consistent with anti-speciesism

Certainly many who become vegans for dietary reasons may learn of the larger ethical movement and, since their practices are now compatible with "better" ethics, they may endorse that broader definition as well. Both definitions of veganism will continue to exist, but ethical veganism is overshadowed in the public mind by dietary veganism.

Regarding usage:
Predominant usage isn't necessarily correct, particularly when it comes from people outside the group.

My point is more that there is no such thing as "correct" usage. People will always be declaring that they have the correct usage of this or that word, but the reality is that languages will be used as the speakers use them and it is pretty hard to control that.

Atheists may variously (and very popularly, at least until recently by theists) be defined as people who hate god and so lie about believing he doesn't exist and in secret worship Satan.

But that is the predominant usage in the vernacular today, so if launching into any general-purpose discussion one would be well advised to be aware of it and actively distance oneself from that position if one did not agree with it.

Popularity alone doesn't make a definition accurate, particularly when it ascribes qualities to a group we know to actually exist and have their own opinions about things.

I only recently learned that there was a Vegan Society or that their viewpoints were related to animal cruelty. That this group claimed to define the word vegan in terms of animal welfare hit me like a punch in the stomach. I really hate it that ethical purists are trying to coopt a term I have always thought applied strictly to a dietary choice, as the word implies. I have, of course, always know that people were vegetarian or vegan for a variety of reasons, but I never felt that those reasons had any business entering into the definition of the word. And, of course, I do now know that vegans coined the word in the first place around their animal-based philosophy and not out of any love of plants whatsoever, so they should have "first dibs" on defining the word. But the language is funny that way; how words get used depends on how they get used, not on how they got coined.

I think most people at least intuitively recognize that "vegan" has an ethical connotation, as evidenced by how quick they are to point out perceived hypocrisy such as with leather shoes.

I disagree that it is all that intuitive, as I was quite unaware of it. Sure, I have occasionally heard the leather shoe connection, but didn't think much of it. And when I heard that the Tesla was vegan, I said it was ridiculous because gasoline is mined or made from plants, not animals. When I heard it was because the seats weren't leather, I had to think about it long and hard before I realized a completely different sense of the word vegan was being used.

I don't even think "vegan" is considered mere ritual by non-vegans,

I do. I mention this only because you may have an inflated perception of the awareness of people of ethical vegan concerns. Yes, people know animals die so they can eat them and wear shoes, but I think I can safely say the vast majority of people see no ethical questions arising from this at all. It is perfectly ok to do it, just like manufacturing anything else. So much so, that even when they become aware of ethical veganism and can joke with vegans about where they get their shoes, they denounce it as hipster or new age or cultish and not mainstream ethics. It is true, way back in the 70's when I first heard of vegetarianism it was always associated with avoiding animal cruelty, because the message that meat and dairy were uber-healthy was still unquestioned (in the mainstream). But, like most, I thought people who wouldn't eat animals to spare them pain were just being overly sentimental and should recognize that livestock are not pets and have no idea what's coming. And from a suffering standpoint, certainly 99% of the suffering livestock endure today (but not back then) relates to living conditions and not they they will be slaughtered (which, sadly, probably comes as a relief).

and I believe the vast majority of self identified vegans report ethical interests (even if they are secondary to health).

As they learn more reasons for being vegan, who wouldn't want to claim ethical superiority? I resist doing so out of sheer stubbornness (and subtle philosophical reasons).