Current definintion from the Vegan Society:
Veganism is a 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.
It has come to my attention that originally, the word vegan only referred to a diet and not to "a way of living". Vegans were encouraged, but not required, to exclude non-food products of animal exploitation. Later, Leslie Cross took over the UK Vegan Society from Donald Watson and changed the definition of the word vegan so that it required the exclusion of all forms of exploitation, which led to the definition we have today.
In light of this information, I have decided to start using the original definition and I would like to invite you to join me in doing so. If everyone used this definition, it would probably result in a higher percentage of the population becoming dietary vegans than exists currently.
The reason is that it doesn't require as much of people. If veganism is only a diet, someone who owns a pet snake can go vegan and continue feeding their snake prey animals. But if veganism is a way of living, using the current definition, how is this person supposed to exclude cruelty to the snake without exploiting prey animals to feed it? Giving the snake to someone else changes nothing because the problem still exists, even when you don't have to deal with it yourself.
Do cat owners who go vegan need to switch their cats to a vegan diet? Not if veganism is only a diet. But if it's a way of living, maybe they do, if it's 'possible'. I feed my cats meat cat food on the grounds that it isn't possible, in my opinion, to feed them vegan food without it harming them. But if I'm wrong, I'm not even vegan, under the current definition, and the downside to that is if I'm not vegan, maybe I will start consuming animal products here and there. It is not like I have years as a vegan under my belt, that I would be throwing away by eating some animal product, because I've been buying and feeding my cats meat cat food the whole time I have been following an animal free diet, which makes me "non-vegan" anyway.
And there are many other things for people to worry about under the current system: excluding cruelty and animal derived ingredients in clothes, pest control, toiletries, tires, construction materials, vaccines, etc. Not to mention people need to take a stance on vivisection, working dogs (who can do important police work such as identify murder suspects and find cadavers, drugs or bombs), circuses, zoos, marine mammal parks, public aquariums and other thing like that.
It would be better if 50% of the population were dietary vegans than if 10% were dietary vegans who also feel obliged to determine the amount of cruelty to wild animals their purchase of some petroleum derived product brings, for example, or who feel obliged to steer clear of all the plant foods that are pollinated by exploited honey bees, or who feel obliged to give up their seeing eye dog or whatever.
Under the current system, it is easy to charge hypocrisy. If vegans are the anti-animal cruelty people, per the current definition, then why is it that most people (probably like 95%) who volunteer their time and money to work with stray dogs and cats are non-vegans? It is cruel to leave feral domesticated animals to freeze, starve and be devoured by fleas, ticks and other parasites. Luckily people build insulated winter shelters out of storage totes for feral cat colonies to use during the winter, and bring food and water for them daily. They also trap feral cats and bring them in for veterinary care when needed, volunteer at animal shelters where they walk dogs and socialize cats, etc. They foster homeless animals, run animal rescues out of their houses and adopt animals when they can, so that cats and dogs do not have to live month after month, and in some cases for years, in tiny enclosures at a shelter. But if veganism is only a diet, homeless dogs and cats are an a-vegan problem, just like they are an a-keto problem or a-standard American diet problem, so there is no hypocrisy.
It's just a much clearer and more concrete concept when it is only a diet - and not so nebulous. It being a diet only does not preclude anyone from excluding other forms of exploitation, but being a way of living does preclude it from making sense and being a consistent principle someone can live by, in a lot of cases, such as in the case of a person with a pet snake.
Veganism is a 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.
It has come to my attention that originally, the word vegan only referred to a diet and not to "a way of living". Vegans were encouraged, but not required, to exclude non-food products of animal exploitation. Later, Leslie Cross took over the UK Vegan Society from Donald Watson and changed the definition of the word vegan so that it required the exclusion of all forms of exploitation, which led to the definition we have today.
In light of this information, I have decided to start using the original definition and I would like to invite you to join me in doing so. If everyone used this definition, it would probably result in a higher percentage of the population becoming dietary vegans than exists currently.
The reason is that it doesn't require as much of people. If veganism is only a diet, someone who owns a pet snake can go vegan and continue feeding their snake prey animals. But if veganism is a way of living, using the current definition, how is this person supposed to exclude cruelty to the snake without exploiting prey animals to feed it? Giving the snake to someone else changes nothing because the problem still exists, even when you don't have to deal with it yourself.
Do cat owners who go vegan need to switch their cats to a vegan diet? Not if veganism is only a diet. But if it's a way of living, maybe they do, if it's 'possible'. I feed my cats meat cat food on the grounds that it isn't possible, in my opinion, to feed them vegan food without it harming them. But if I'm wrong, I'm not even vegan, under the current definition, and the downside to that is if I'm not vegan, maybe I will start consuming animal products here and there. It is not like I have years as a vegan under my belt, that I would be throwing away by eating some animal product, because I've been buying and feeding my cats meat cat food the whole time I have been following an animal free diet, which makes me "non-vegan" anyway.
And there are many other things for people to worry about under the current system: excluding cruelty and animal derived ingredients in clothes, pest control, toiletries, tires, construction materials, vaccines, etc. Not to mention people need to take a stance on vivisection, working dogs (who can do important police work such as identify murder suspects and find cadavers, drugs or bombs), circuses, zoos, marine mammal parks, public aquariums and other thing like that.
It would be better if 50% of the population were dietary vegans than if 10% were dietary vegans who also feel obliged to determine the amount of cruelty to wild animals their purchase of some petroleum derived product brings, for example, or who feel obliged to steer clear of all the plant foods that are pollinated by exploited honey bees, or who feel obliged to give up their seeing eye dog or whatever.
Under the current system, it is easy to charge hypocrisy. If vegans are the anti-animal cruelty people, per the current definition, then why is it that most people (probably like 95%) who volunteer their time and money to work with stray dogs and cats are non-vegans? It is cruel to leave feral domesticated animals to freeze, starve and be devoured by fleas, ticks and other parasites. Luckily people build insulated winter shelters out of storage totes for feral cat colonies to use during the winter, and bring food and water for them daily. They also trap feral cats and bring them in for veterinary care when needed, volunteer at animal shelters where they walk dogs and socialize cats, etc. They foster homeless animals, run animal rescues out of their houses and adopt animals when they can, so that cats and dogs do not have to live month after month, and in some cases for years, in tiny enclosures at a shelter. But if veganism is only a diet, homeless dogs and cats are an a-vegan problem, just like they are an a-keto problem or a-standard American diet problem, so there is no hypocrisy.
It's just a much clearer and more concrete concept when it is only a diet - and not so nebulous. It being a diet only does not preclude anyone from excluding other forms of exploitation, but being a way of living does preclude it from making sense and being a consistent principle someone can live by, in a lot of cases, such as in the case of a person with a pet snake.
Last edited:
