Philosophical Vegan Forum

The Paris exemption states that "if you find yourself in a fine restaurant, allow yourself to eat what you want, and if you have no access to vegan food, go vegetarian."[1] the topic stirs up a lot of debate in the vegan community, you have two of the biggest names in the vegan movement up against each other in a battle of morality. The question comes down to this, is it morally excusable to accept non vegan meals if the choices are few at an event, or if you are given non vegan food as a friend.

Two main advocates of the Paris exception include Peter Singer and PETA. Two main oposers to the exception are Regan and Francione.

Let the debate begin.

You should always eat what you want, if you want to only eat vegan then no dont sell out your believes go eat in another restaurant, if your a vegan thats ok with a bit of vegetarian now and then stay eat !
There should not need to be a debate about this in my eyes its a choiche of anny individual alone.

d3lanoz wrote:There should not need to be a debate about this in my eyes its a choiche of anny individual alone.

You seem to be guilty of massively over simplifying the problem. The choice is what makes the topic debatable.
So we can ask questions like:
How will this make the animal rights movement look?
What impact will this have on others around me?
Should I bend my morals to fit the convenience of those around me?
Will such an action be grounds for them to point and cry "hypocrite"?
Is my decisions morally acceptable?

for me the only why i would ever consider eating something non-vegan is in a dire emergency situation. Paris is not one of those situations.
One of my biggest pet peeves is a lack of consistency and personal hypocrisy. If you stand for something, stand for it. if Im against rape, I don't try and find wiggle room and exceptions where i can freely engage in it. If Im against racism, I don't reserve a time and place so that I can spew racist slurs.

For me veganism is a social justice issue, and I can't participate in the cruelty of meat or dairy (or leather, fur, wool, silk, etc).

TheVeganAtheist wrote:if Im against rape, I don't try and find wiggle room and exceptions where i can freely engage in it. If Im against racism, I don't reserve a time and place so that I can spew racist slurs.

That's a great way of putting it.

A lot of it comes down to intention, though.

There is a good argument for eating the "accidentally vegan" things that may contain trivial traces of animal products in social situations, because they are generally viewed as vegan, and it gives veganism a more practical image.

Outright eating cheese, eggs, or other animal products (e.g. in an obvious dish containing them) is a problem, though.

It could be argued that these are different degrees of the same issue- one simply more exaggerated than the other- but I think that misses an important point.

The "accidentally vegan" stuff PETA advocates is to show that veganism can be practical (not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good).
The Paris exemption doesn't do that so much as confuse people, and introduce unnecessary and unproductive hedonistic loopholes and undermine the whole point of veganism (or ethics in general).

Yes, it's better for people to be vegan 99% of the time than none at all- but why call this vegan if they're deliberately and unnecessarily eating animal products 1% of the time?

We already have a term for that in the flexi- prefix. E.g. flexitarian.
It's perfectly fine for people to say they're flexitarian, or flexivegan, meaning they eat vegetarian or vegan most of the time and generally avoid animal products, but cheat sometimes when the mood strikes them or when vegetarianism/veganism is mildly inconvenient.

Well reading the last post made me think this : No its not right to call yourself a vegan and then in paris eat meat or animal products. If you want to eat it call yourself a flexi-something and dont be a liar

Giveing a name to a problem does not solve the problem. Call it what you like, should we accept it. If we provide loop holes people will abuse them.

Where do we mark the sand between a vegan and a flexi-vegan? If someone was vegan every day but Friday does that make him a flexi-vegan? Is it morally acceptable to do this. If someone is vegan one day of the week, are they a flexi-vegan?

The only thing I can see this flexi-vegan thing being any good for is in transition into true veganism.

bobo0100 wrote:Giveing a name to a problem does not solve the problem.

It solves the issue of identity and confusion for carnists, which was one of the problems mentioned.

bobo0100 wrote:Call it what you like, should we accept it. If we provide loop holes people will abuse them.

It's not a loophole, it's a different matter entirely. A flexi-vegan is not a vegan. They're a type of meat eater or vegetarian who just mainly eats vegan, but will make exceptions sometimes in less than extreme circumstances- such as if it's inconvenient, or a special occasion (e.g. Thanksgiving, visiting Paris). A vegan will only make exceptions in extreme circumstances.

bobo0100 wrote:Where do we mark the sand between a vegan and a flexi-vegan?

PETA advocates veganism ("accidentally vegan" things are extreme- parts per million animal products, etc. the avoidance of which makes veganism seem impossible and irrational for most people, therefore they should be ignored by all vegans, at least in company). McDougall, and sometimes Singer, advocate flexi-veganism.

This issue mainly comes down to the question of "practical", which is somewhat subjective, but requires us to ask how extreme the circumstances are, and what that image presents to others.

bobo0100 wrote:If someone was vegan every day but Friday does that make him a flexi-vegan?

No, this is somebody who only eats meat on Fridays. They should say they're a meat eater, but they eat vegan Saturday to Thursday. They WANT animal products in their food on Friday. Or they should not call themselves vegan, but say "I'm vegan Saturday to Thursday, and a Meat Eater on Friday". If asked if they are vegan - yes or no - they should answer no.

A flexi-vegan eats non vegan in certain circumstances and certain occasions - non-extreme circumstances and occasions - but generally does not want animal products in their food or seek it out (just doesn't mind it too much).
Friday doesn't qualify as either a circumstance or particular occasion.

bobo0100 wrote:Is it morally acceptable to do this.

Of course not. But it's also the much lesser of evils compared to eating animal products every day.

As a 'militant' vegan I would morally never set foot in a 'fine restaurant' where people pay abscure prices for animals to be prepared in an odd ways. I do not think paying a business more money to kill an animal makes it any more morally or socially acceptable than going to a fast food restaurant....

If you have no access to vegan food at an event then do not eat, you can wait a few hours and if your bloodsugar gets low drink some juice...

You may even have a positive impact on those people who ask you why you are not eating..
But if you are at an event that people know you to be vegan and you do not eat vegan, that would just confirm an omnivores subconcious point of view that everyone wants/needs animals and wholefoods.. An omni could think "See even vegans eat meat/cheese sometimes"..
Grrr I don't even like the sound of that...
Unless the animal is suffering you can't morally justify any pain inflicted on animals, in my opinion...

brimstoneSalad wrote:It's not a loophole, it's a different matter entirely. A flexi-vegan is not a vegan

So your telling me when you hear the word flexi-vegan you do not associate such a thing with vegan? To outside eyes it's a different sect of the same thing. This re opens the problem of "see even vegans eat meat and animal products". Not only should this not be advocated as anything but on the way to mutant veganism, but it should be totally disassociated with veganism. Calling it flexi-vegan does not do this.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

bobo0100 wrote:Is it morally acceptable to do this.

Of course not. But it's also the much lesser of evils compared to eating animal products every day.

The problem with the lesser of two evils is that it ignores the 3rd option, no (or at least very little) evil.

Do you use the Paris exception? Or are you playing devils advocate? Or do you advocate Paris exception to those who think veganism is too strict?
-------------------------------------------
As for peater singers philosophy's. It does seem to me ironic that the same man who advocates "give until it physically hurts" would advocate, and partake in such a thing. It almost seems as if he has a double standard, when fighting to end poverty, give until it hurts. When fighting for the animals, give it a break when in Paris. However I'm sure he is very conscious of the inconsistencies within his own philosophy's.