Footsoldier vs Theo on the Definition of Veganism
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2020 11:33 am
-
My Pre-Debate Notes
I’m debating Vegan Footsoldier in the Arthuria discord server today at 2PM EST on my claim that:
We should define veganism as "an animal products boycott" which is primarily against animal agriculture, and not "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals" which is vague and excludes people with other ethical systems.
Link to the server: https://discord.gg/Arthuria
How to explain what veganism is
I define veganism as simply "an animal products boycott."
I make the point of saying it’s one campaign tactic among many, aimed primarily at achieving the end of animal agriculture.
And say; why someone would arrive at that ethical conclusion could be a million ways, but the 3 main ethical schools of thought you can draw from are consequentialism, virtue ethics and deontology.
Why not use other definitions?
The reason I would encourage people use the definition "an animal products boycott" and not other definitions is it gets at the root motivation people have for being vegan without being divisive about which ethical system is best.
In 1944 those members of the vegetarian society who were avoiding all use of animal products, created their own vegan society and came up with the word vegan. They did this out of a concern that we should be advocating the boycott of the dairy and egg industries.
Now I acknowledge that one problem with defining veganism as an “animal products boycott” is people saying “well would you be okay with hunting wild animals yourself then?” But to that I would answer “implicit in the word boycott is an ethical judgement on the activity that creates the product.”
So, when I boycott products containing palm oil because of rainforest destruction needed to produce the product for example, it wouldn’t suddenly be okay for me to then go out and do that rainforest destruction myself just because I didn’t sell the palm oil on.
You can't desire that all commercial use of animal products stop existing in the world through a commercial boycott and also do an action which through your boycotting hope to prevent the incentive for it ever happening.
Now, does this definition leave room for any exceptions to the rule? Well yes in a way, but I would say a positive one, in that it allows for waste animal products to be used if no profit finds it’s way back to the person who caused the harm. If you can get a supermarket to redirect it’s 1000 loaves of bread containing whey from going in the dumpster to a food bank, that can only be a benefit to the world.
Also, it doesn’t attempt to include animal entertainment boycotts in what it means to be vegan, and simply leaves that to be included in what it means to be an animal rights advocate. Although it’s so similar one can raise an eyebrow about why someone would boycott animal agriculture and not animal cruelty as entertainment. People already view veganism as simply abstaining from the use of animal products, so we just do have to contend with why awful people like some eco-fascists desire to be vegans and denounce them. To try and pretend that someone boycotting animal products can’t also be an awful person in other ways is wilfully ignorant. In the same way, claiming that ex-vegans could never have been vegan for not having understood the ethical arguments is fallacious and off-putting.
What specifically is wrong with other definitions?
Why not define veganism as reducing suffering which is the consequentialist reason for being vegan? Because ‘reducing suffering’ is too big, too abstract, too idealistic, beyond the capacity of one person to ever achieve, laudable but doomed to failure. Whereas ‘boycotting animal products’ is not. ‘Reducing suffering’ creates the impression of the martyr, the need to live a ridiculously puritan lifestyle, like Jain monks sweeping the floor everywhere they walk. And excludes all other ethical systems.
Why not define veganism as the rule that ‘man should not exploit animal’ which is the deontological reason for being vegan? Because it immediately brings to mind the plenty of ways we can pragmatically rescue animals and improve their circumstances while still less obviously exploitative-ly keeping them captive, e.g. rescuing dogs, chickens or horses. And excludes all other ethical systems.
The debates that lead up to the creation of the vegan society were about the dairy industry. They were raised equally from a concern about well-being and about rights:
Dr. Anna Bonus Kingsford, a member of the Vegetarian Society in 1944 argued for a total boycott of animal products, saying “[the dairy industry] must involve some slaughter I think and some suffering to the cows and calves.”
Why not define veganism as a hodge-podge of the two main ethical systems, consequentialism and deontology, as the modern vegan society tries to do? Because it’s far too convoluted and open to misinterpretation. You get into debates about what does “as far as is possible and practicable” mean, when you could just say veganism is a boycott. If you aren’t capable of participating for being eating disordered for example, that’s ok, you can be ethically on par with or more ethical than a vegan in your own way, but you just aren’t able to participate in the boycott.
Grey areas
With every definition there are a 1000 grey areas like oysters or backyard eggs. I would just direct the conversation back to the core of getting consensus first on the ethical issue of where the majority of people get their meat from. What's important is this definition focus's the conversation and is easily accessible.
Inherent in the word boycott is an ethical judgment on the act itself
The only reason to desire to boycott both animal food and clothing products is an ethical judgement on the process of obtaining animal products, so hoping to prevent the incentive for it ever happening through not supporting it.
People didn't do a 'South African products boycott' because they were inherently against tropical fruits, they did it because of the method used to obtain the fruits through predominantly black laborers living under apartheid.
Veganism is 'an animal products boycott' in the same way the boycott against South Africa was 'a South African products boycott'. It's a boycott primarily against animal agriculture.
Easily comprehensible and accessible
A really important positive attribute to acknowledge about this lifestyle is it's a broad food category that in its wholefood form is easy to distinguish on the shelf. Therefore experimenting with the diet doesn't need to feel like a burden to take on board in the same way researching and seeking out conflict-free minerals in everything you buy can be for example.
All that appeal is lost if you try to include researching to boycott non-vegan parent companies in the same animal products boycott.
Focuses the conversation on it being a political tactic
It's not the case that we need to win over everyone to veganism in order to make massive change, if a large enough minority can create breathing room for legislation and food co-ops on the way to a vegan world, I do think it’s both an obligation to attempt it and to make the transition easier saving humans and wildlife. As well as driving less, buying second hand, etc.
Immediately relatable to other boycotts people feel positively about
Boycotts have the effect of bringing communities together under a liberation politics. For example car-sharing during the Montgomery bus boycott, students leading the call to stop subsidising Israel and before that South Africa, the widespread boycotting of a reactionary tabloid newspaper in the UK that ran stories saying mass suffocation at a football stadium due to overcrowding and fences were the fans fault. So boycotting to show your real felt ties to the land you stand on as necessary optics for seriousness on the left.
-
My Pre-Debate Notes
I’m debating Vegan Footsoldier in the Arthuria discord server today at 2PM EST on my claim that:
We should define veganism as "an animal products boycott" which is primarily against animal agriculture, and not "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals" which is vague and excludes people with other ethical systems.
Link to the server: https://discord.gg/Arthuria
How to explain what veganism is
I define veganism as simply "an animal products boycott."
I make the point of saying it’s one campaign tactic among many, aimed primarily at achieving the end of animal agriculture.
And say; why someone would arrive at that ethical conclusion could be a million ways, but the 3 main ethical schools of thought you can draw from are consequentialism, virtue ethics and deontology.
Why not use other definitions?
The reason I would encourage people use the definition "an animal products boycott" and not other definitions is it gets at the root motivation people have for being vegan without being divisive about which ethical system is best.
In 1944 those members of the vegetarian society who were avoiding all use of animal products, created their own vegan society and came up with the word vegan. They did this out of a concern that we should be advocating the boycott of the dairy and egg industries.
Now I acknowledge that one problem with defining veganism as an “animal products boycott” is people saying “well would you be okay with hunting wild animals yourself then?” But to that I would answer “implicit in the word boycott is an ethical judgement on the activity that creates the product.”
So, when I boycott products containing palm oil because of rainforest destruction needed to produce the product for example, it wouldn’t suddenly be okay for me to then go out and do that rainforest destruction myself just because I didn’t sell the palm oil on.
You can't desire that all commercial use of animal products stop existing in the world through a commercial boycott and also do an action which through your boycotting hope to prevent the incentive for it ever happening.
Now, does this definition leave room for any exceptions to the rule? Well yes in a way, but I would say a positive one, in that it allows for waste animal products to be used if no profit finds it’s way back to the person who caused the harm. If you can get a supermarket to redirect it’s 1000 loaves of bread containing whey from going in the dumpster to a food bank, that can only be a benefit to the world.
Also, it doesn’t attempt to include animal entertainment boycotts in what it means to be vegan, and simply leaves that to be included in what it means to be an animal rights advocate. Although it’s so similar one can raise an eyebrow about why someone would boycott animal agriculture and not animal cruelty as entertainment. People already view veganism as simply abstaining from the use of animal products, so we just do have to contend with why awful people like some eco-fascists desire to be vegans and denounce them. To try and pretend that someone boycotting animal products can’t also be an awful person in other ways is wilfully ignorant. In the same way, claiming that ex-vegans could never have been vegan for not having understood the ethical arguments is fallacious and off-putting.
What specifically is wrong with other definitions?
Why not define veganism as reducing suffering which is the consequentialist reason for being vegan? Because ‘reducing suffering’ is too big, too abstract, too idealistic, beyond the capacity of one person to ever achieve, laudable but doomed to failure. Whereas ‘boycotting animal products’ is not. ‘Reducing suffering’ creates the impression of the martyr, the need to live a ridiculously puritan lifestyle, like Jain monks sweeping the floor everywhere they walk. And excludes all other ethical systems.
Why not define veganism as the rule that ‘man should not exploit animal’ which is the deontological reason for being vegan? Because it immediately brings to mind the plenty of ways we can pragmatically rescue animals and improve their circumstances while still less obviously exploitative-ly keeping them captive, e.g. rescuing dogs, chickens or horses. And excludes all other ethical systems.
The debates that lead up to the creation of the vegan society were about the dairy industry. They were raised equally from a concern about well-being and about rights:
Dr. Anna Bonus Kingsford, a member of the Vegetarian Society in 1944 argued for a total boycott of animal products, saying “[the dairy industry] must involve some slaughter I think and some suffering to the cows and calves.”
Why not define veganism as a hodge-podge of the two main ethical systems, consequentialism and deontology, as the modern vegan society tries to do? Because it’s far too convoluted and open to misinterpretation. You get into debates about what does “as far as is possible and practicable” mean, when you could just say veganism is a boycott. If you aren’t capable of participating for being eating disordered for example, that’s ok, you can be ethically on par with or more ethical than a vegan in your own way, but you just aren’t able to participate in the boycott.
Grey areas
With every definition there are a 1000 grey areas like oysters or backyard eggs. I would just direct the conversation back to the core of getting consensus first on the ethical issue of where the majority of people get their meat from. What's important is this definition focus's the conversation and is easily accessible.
Inherent in the word boycott is an ethical judgment on the act itself
The only reason to desire to boycott both animal food and clothing products is an ethical judgement on the process of obtaining animal products, so hoping to prevent the incentive for it ever happening through not supporting it.
People didn't do a 'South African products boycott' because they were inherently against tropical fruits, they did it because of the method used to obtain the fruits through predominantly black laborers living under apartheid.
Veganism is 'an animal products boycott' in the same way the boycott against South Africa was 'a South African products boycott'. It's a boycott primarily against animal agriculture.
Easily comprehensible and accessible
A really important positive attribute to acknowledge about this lifestyle is it's a broad food category that in its wholefood form is easy to distinguish on the shelf. Therefore experimenting with the diet doesn't need to feel like a burden to take on board in the same way researching and seeking out conflict-free minerals in everything you buy can be for example.
All that appeal is lost if you try to include researching to boycott non-vegan parent companies in the same animal products boycott.
Focuses the conversation on it being a political tactic
It's not the case that we need to win over everyone to veganism in order to make massive change, if a large enough minority can create breathing room for legislation and food co-ops on the way to a vegan world, I do think it’s both an obligation to attempt it and to make the transition easier saving humans and wildlife. As well as driving less, buying second hand, etc.
Immediately relatable to other boycotts people feel positively about
Boycotts have the effect of bringing communities together under a liberation politics. For example car-sharing during the Montgomery bus boycott, students leading the call to stop subsidising Israel and before that South Africa, the widespread boycotting of a reactionary tabloid newspaper in the UK that ran stories saying mass suffocation at a football stadium due to overcrowding and fences were the fans fault. So boycotting to show your real felt ties to the land you stand on as necessary optics for seriousness on the left.
-