Philosophical Vegan Forum

I have seen, and been personal to, vegetarians who do not catch the favor of some Vegans. It's like labeling yourself Agnostic in the war between Atheists and Religion, it rarely ever goes well.

I had a vegetarian blog before the site I have now where I would post about food and stuff, and had people over there say things like "congratulations, but..." or "You're still part of the problem." I see this all the time, whenever someone claims they are lacto-ovo vegetarian, or pescaterian (which I am not any longer), or even semi-vegetarian, they have many (not all) vegans attack them still for not being Totally Vegan.

And I understand the mindset that many Vegans come from on an ethical point, they don't want animals harmed at all, and just want everyone to become 100% Vegan yesterday. Many instances I have seen involve people claiming that "the milk/egg industry is EVEN WORSE than the meat industry!"

While this makes sense, I don't know why it should. Every Lacto-ovo vegetarian, every Meatless Monday, every Weekday Vegetarian, reduces the suffering of animals, even by a little bit. That, to me, should be all that is important for the first baby-steps. Not everyone is going to become vegan overnight, but if 10% of carnists became lacto-ovo vegetarians in the next 10 years, with an additional 20% becoming weekday vegetarians, I would not consider that a lost cause.

Then again, I am not a vegan, or even an ethical vegetarian, so my opinion comes from a more logical view than a moral one. But in terms of animal suffering, isn't it better to promote meatless monday's, lacto-vegetarianism, and semi-vegetarianism, as opposed to the common practice of "With Me Or Against Me, No Middle Ground!!!" that only breeds contempt for the movement in the long-run, and makes the movement look a little extremist?

And to clarify again, I KNOW not all vegans are like this, many are wonderful and not extremist. But as a curiousity, what do you all in the vegan community think of this dilemma? Am I overthinking this?

I don't mind vegetarians, I think they're either just a bit confused or still in the process of phasing out animal products.. I was personally vegetarian for around 6 months before realizing it made a lot more sense to just go all the way.

Many vegans seem to have gone through steps: meat-eater -> remove red meat -> pescetarian -> vegetarian -> vegan

my opinion comes from a more logical view than a moral one.

Morality can't be logical?

knot wrote:I don't mind vegetarians, I think they're either just a bit confused or still in the process of phasing out animal products.. I was personally vegetarian for around 6 months before realizing it made a lot more sense to just go all the way.

Many vegans seem to have gone through steps: meat-eater -> remove red meat -> pescetarian -> vegetarian -> vegan

my opinion comes from a more logical view than a moral one.

Morality can't be logical?

But what about vegetarians that don't feel like they want to go all the way? Or are content with cutting out all animal products besides, say, cheese and honey?

And yes, morality CAN be logical. The sad thing though, is that ethical arguments for much of anything tend not to follow very many logical points. Many arguments that use the Appeal to Emotion tend not to explain why something should be excluded for ethical reasons, or otherwise the ethical reasons come off as extremist, or obnoxious.

Many arguments for veganism rely on specific emotionally-drawn claims about certain animal products or carnist behaviors, usually without providing evidence for the validity of said claims. Some of the time, the claims are either misinterpreted, overblown, or flat out wrong.

Like with religious arguments, we have to make a firm distinction between logical emotional claims, and Appeal to Emotion claims. Veganism does have supporting science behind it, but in general, Veganism is an emotion-based ideology fighting for the rights of fellow sentient beings not to suffer needlessly.

Have you tried nutritional yeast? It tastes kinda like parmesan cheese, but it's much healthier.. I put it on everything!

Honey.. hmm.. doesn't syrup taste exactly the same?

And yes, morality CAN be logical. The sad thing though, is that ethical arguments for much of anything tend not to follow very many logical points. Many arguments that use the Appeal to Emotion tend not to explain why something should be excluded for ethical reasons, or otherwise the ethical reasons come off as extremist, or obnoxious.

Many arguments for veganism rely on specific emotionally-drawn claims about certain animal products or carnist behaviors, usually without providing evidence for the validity of said claims. Some of the time, the claims are either misinterpreted, overblown, or flat out wrong.

On the contrary, I think veganism is the most logical approach to morality. It's better for your health, the environment, for other people (less resources wasted) and better for the animals. So the relevant question is if any of those things matter. As long as you think at least 1 out of those 4 things matter, then it will be very difficult to argue against veganism.

I also wouldn't say extremism is necessarily bad. For example, extremism in Islam = VERY bad. Extremism in Jainism = good

ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote:But what about vegetarians that don't feel like they want to go all the way? Or are content with cutting out all animal products besides, say, cheese and honey?

The same as vegans who don't want to cut out palm oil. Or who don't mind about human suffering or environmental destruction, and are just content with not eating animals directly.

It's called complacency. It's a smug sense of self satisfaction.

It's comparable to the same sense of superficial superiority complex Christians get when, no matter what harm they do to others, they're OK and good people because Jesus forgives them.

It's not how the world works. Simply declaring yourself good, or bowing to a dogma that says so, does not make it so.

A person is good or bad based on how he or she affects the world around him or her, and since nobody is perfect, based on how a person tries to improve over time. Anybody who declares his or herself "done" with self improvement is complacent -- whether that's a vegan, a vegetarian, or a meat eater.

ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote:And yes, morality CAN be logical. The sad thing though, is that ethical arguments for much of anything tend not to follow very many logical points.

If you're going by morons on most of the internet, no arguments of any kind follow logical points.

Actual ethics is a branch of philosophy, and it's founded on logic. This forum is different from most of the internet, it's a reason based discussion forum, and a respect for logic is in the forum rules. Anybody who comes here to discuss will base the arguments made on sound logic. People who consistently refuse to answer questions or respond to logical arguments will be asked to leave.

ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote:Many arguments that use the Appeal to Emotion tend not to explain why something should be excluded for ethical reasons,

That's not allowed here. People have to use logic if they make arguments here.

ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote:Veganism is an emotion-based ideology fighting for the rights of fellow sentient beings not to suffer needlessly.

"Rights" based arguments are deontological veganism; it's completely irrational.

Please see this thread for a lengthy discussion on it: https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... ?f=7&t=785

Most of us are consequential vegans, which is a very different thing.

knot wrote:Have you tried nutritional yeast? It tastes kinda like parmesan cheese, but it's much healthier.. I put it on everything!

Honey.. hmm.. doesn't syrup taste exactly the same?

And yes, morality CAN be logical. The sad thing though, is that ethical arguments for much of anything tend not to follow very many logical points. Many arguments that use the Appeal to Emotion tend not to explain why something should be excluded for ethical reasons, or otherwise the ethical reasons come off as extremist, or obnoxious.

Many arguments for veganism rely on specific emotionally-drawn claims about certain animal products or carnist behaviors, usually without providing evidence for the validity of said claims. Some of the time, the claims are either misinterpreted, overblown, or flat out wrong.

On the contrary, I think veganism is the most logical approach to morality. It's better for your health, the environment, for other people (less resources wasted) and better for the animals. So the relevant question is if any of those things matter. As long as you think at least 1 out of those 4 things matter, then it will be very difficult to argue against veganism.

I also wouldn't say extremism is necessarily bad. For example, extremism in Islam = VERY bad. Extremism in Jainism = good

I don't eat honey or syrup, tbh XD not because of moral reasons, but simply because I don't like the taste of honey.

And I see your point there, veganism is pretty logical, so long as logical arguments are used. I have never been able to argue much against veganism myself, even in my combative debating days.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote:But what about vegetarians that don't feel like they want to go all the way? Or are content with cutting out all animal products besides, say, cheese and honey?

The same as vegans who don't want to cut out palm oil. Or who don't mind about human suffering or environmental destruction, and are just content with not eating animals directly.

It's called complacency. It's a smug sense of self satisfaction.

It's comparable to the same sense of superficial superiority complex Christians get when, no matter what harm they do to others, they're OK and good people because Jesus forgives them.

It's not how the world works. Simply declaring yourself good, or bowing to a dogma that says so, does not make it so.

A person is good or bad based on how he or she affects the world around him or her, and since nobody is perfect, based on how a person tries to improve over time. Anybody who declares his or herself "done" with self improvement is complacent -- whether that's a vegan, a vegetarian, or a meat eater.

True, I can see that. There is always room for self-improvement, and being complacent in "partly good" does seem to come off as smug.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote:And yes, morality CAN be logical. The sad thing though, is that ethical arguments for much of anything tend not to follow very many logical points.

If you're going by morons on most of the internet, no arguments of any kind follow logical points.

Actual ethics is a branch of philosophy, and it's founded on logic. This forum is different from most of the internet, it's a reason based discussion forum, and a respect for logic is in the forum rules. Anybody who comes here to discuss will base the arguments made on sound logic. People who consistently refuse to answer questions or respond to logical arguments will be asked to leave.

Can I get an Amen on that?

I can definitely understand that. Especially in a forum that promotes Atheism, it's good to see that the logical side is being portrayed more than the radical one.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

ThatNerdyScienceGirl wrote:Veganism is an emotion-based ideology fighting for the rights of fellow sentient beings not to suffer needlessly.

"Rights" based arguments are deontological veganism; it's completely irrational.

Please see this thread for a lengthy discussion on it: https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... ?f=7&t=785

Most of us are consequential vegans, which is a very different thing.

I guess "rights" was not the right word to use in that instance, I was trying to refer to causing unnecessary suffering because the suffering is unnecessary and need not be done. I guess I too subscribe to the ideals of Consequential Veganism, sorry for the confusion ^_^;