HRC report: 70% of vegans stop being vegan.

[prioritarian]

Then what is about?
Where is the strawman? Veganism, as defined by vegan groups, is primarily about the avoidance of a particular class of products and is not rooted in any specific ethical, legal or scientific theory. Now, of course, vegans as individuals may have some "ethical impetus" but that doesn't mean veganism as a doctrine does.

The "not vegan" vegan sect has it's proponents but it's not fair to say that veganism is not rooted in ethics:

"which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty
to, animals..."

While the above statement is not rooted in "any specific ethical, legal or scientific theory" the same can be said for just about any socio-political movement, including animal welfare/rights.

 

[flyingsnail]

The "not vegan" vegan sect has it's proponents but it's not fair to say that veganism is not rooted in ethics:

"which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty
to, animals..."

Why is it not fair? What you just quoted isn't an ethical theory or even a normative statement, its just a vague assertion about what vegans exclude. Why exclude such things? And what does it mean to exploit to animal? What constitutes a cruel act towards an animal? Does the cruelty of the act depend on the animal or is it universal? Vegan groups don't address much.

Firstly I don't think veganism is a socio-political movement. How could it be? Vegans have such divert views. And, no, you can't say the same thing about any socio-political movement. Socio-political movements always hinge on particular political or philosophic ideals and any actions are derived from those ideals. Socially veganism is more like a subculture, for example, being a metal head or punk rocker.

 

[prioritarian]

What you just quoted isn't an ethical theory or even a normative statement, its just a vague assertion about what vegans exclude.

Exclusion of cruelty, as far as is possible and practicable, is negative utilitarianism in a nutshell. If you can't see this then I think you are simply being intentionally obtuse.

 

[Scorpius]

If you can't see this then I think you are simply being intentionally obtuse.

You don't say . . .

 

[flyingsnail]

Exclusion of cruelty, as far as is possible and practicable, is negative utilitarianism in a nutshell. If you can't see this then I think you are simply being intentionally obtuse.

"Exclusive of cruelty" is not negative utilitarianism in a nutshell, for example, one would have to define exactly what constituted a cruel act and answer the questions I asked among others. Also the definition you cited is in terms of cruelty and exploitation. But, as usual, you ignored my questions. Even if we interpret the definition you cited as a normative statement, its still extremely vague and therefore not actionable. Also how does one derive the long list of non-vegan products from the cited definition? That is, how does this definition connect with the notion of a "vegan product"? Ignoring the lack of clarity in what vegan groups say, I have trouble seeing how a lifestyle that seeks to exclude animal cruelty, as much as possible and practicable, would result in the same actions for every person yet this is exactly what is expected in the vegan community. While you keep suggesting that veganism is based on some sort of utilitarian ethic, it doesn't function that way at all in the culture. Instead it functions as a subculture and dogma.

 

[prioritarian]

While you keep suggesting that veganism is based on some sort of utilitarian ethic, it doesn't function that way at all in the culture. Instead it functions as a subculture and dogma.

It functions that way for me and many other vegans. And I should note that cruelty or exploitation could be defined using non-consequentialist terms so the definition does not have to be utilitarian.

...yet this is exactly what is expected in the vegan community....Instead it functions as a subculture and dogma.

I think we both agree that "dictionary book" vegans (and the vegan police) can be harmful to AR/AW advocacy. Nevertheless, we disagree about how influential and harmful this dogmatic subculture is. To be catty: IME, "rational vegans" are more common in the advocacy trenches while "dictionary book" vegans are more common on social media.

 

[flyingsnail]

It functions that way for me and many other vegans. And I should note that cruelty or exploitation could be defined using non-consequentialist terms so the definition does not have to be utilitarian.

The fact that veganism functions differently for different people demonstrates that veganism, in itself, is merely a doctrine and social club of sorts. To say it once again, I'm not denying that some vegans have been motivated by some particular ethical theory but rather that veganism in itself is just a dogma. But honestly.....I've yet to hear a good case for veganism regardless of the ethical underpinnings of one's belief. You keep doing a funny thing where you are redefining veganism to be consist with your particular ethics. Let me ask you, what is the point of associating with veganism? How does it inform your actions?

To be catty: IME, "rational vegans" are more common in the advocacy trenches while "dictionary book" vegans are more common on social media.

I have no idea to what degree that is true....but I don't find your examples of "rational vegans" (e.g. Matt Ball) to be very rational. That is, I don't find them making articulate arguments for their positions. But I guess, at the end of the day, there is a big difference between advocates and scholars.

 

[prioritarian]

The fact that veganism functions differently for different people demonstrates that veganism, in itself, is merely a doctrine and social club of sorts.

Or it's a diffuse movement that attracts people with disparate motivations who are united in a desire to limit unnecessary use of animals and their products (even if they disagree on how to draw this line). The AR/AW movement has similar diversity in thought and motivation. Do you think the animal rights movement is also a social club?

But honestly.....I've yet to hear a good case for veganism regardless of the ethical underpinnings of one's belief.

That's because your definition of veganism sets a bar that I have no desire to leap.

You keep doing a funny thing where you are redefining veganism to be consist with your particular ethics. Let me ask you, what is the point of associating with veganism? How does it inform your actions?

See above.

There are a number of environmental issues that result in animal suffering but reducing one's foot-print on the earth isn't part of veganism.

Habitat loss and ecosystem disruption are exploitative and some might even describe unnecessary mass extinction as cruel...

Also things like pet ownership, in particular the ownership of cats.

My cat companions now eat a ~95% vegan diet. So they are veganish too!
Hypoallergenic HP / Veterinary Therapeutic Formulas / Feline Nutrition / Veterinary Products / Home - RoyalCanin

 

[flyingsnail]

Or it's a diffuse movement that attracts people with disparate motivations who are united in a desire to limit unnecessary use of animals and their products (even if they disagree on how to draw this line).

This doesn't conflict with what I've said, I would agree that veganism is a "diffuse movement..." and would argue that it is such precisely because veganism, in itself, is little more than social group propelled by a dogmatic doctrine.

The AR/AW movement has similar diversity in thought and motivation. Do you think the animal rights movement is also a social club?

Animal rights and animal welfare aren't the same thing and, in the case of animal rights, there really isn't a huge diversity in thought....at least not on the major points.

That's because your definition of veganism sets a bar that I have no desire to leap.

Huh? My definition? I'm not attempting to provide a new definition of veganism....instead I'm using the definitions provided by vegan groups. You, on the other hand, seem to be trying to redefine veganism to be consist with your particular ethical view. Personally, I don't see the logic in that.....what does it achieve? What I've suggested here is that veganism, as defined by vegan groups, is an inconsistent doctrine that is propelled by dogma rather than philosophy or science.

My cat companions now eat a ~95% vegan diet. So they are veganish too!

Even so, your cat still contributes to animal suffering all to provide with a little cute pet. While I'm sure you'll avoid the question, as you typically do, but how do you justify the ownership of a cat in a utilitarian framework?