The definition of "veganism" and "vegan"

[Second Summer]

How do you define the terms "veganism" and "vegan (person)"? Do you tend to agree with the typical dictionary definitions, or do you prefer the definition by the Vegan Society, or do you have your very own opinion?

Here is the Vegan Society definition of "veganism":

Veganism is a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose.

(From Vegan Society: Who we are.)

Personally, I feel that it makes sense to make a clear distinction between vegan products on one hand, and what a vegan person might consume, use or wear on the other hand. Vegan products are products that do not contain any animal ingredients and have not been processed with any animal ingredients. For "vegan person" I tend to be more forgiving, and the definition (for me) is less clear-cut. However, I do consider veganism to be a lifestyle, i.e. more than just diet.

 

[Alice-Bee]

i think its a good way of labelling products rather than people.
If you see Vegan on a pack of sweets, then you instantly know that they are free of animal nasty bits, however I feel that applying the label Vegan to a person comes with difficulties, because of what it means to different people.
Some people are happy to be 'vegan' and eat honey, or eggs that comes from a pet hen. Or wear used leather/wool/silk. Ive even known people who say you cant be 'vegan' if you have a pet, or even more strangely if you do have a pet and dont refer to it as 'companion animal'. Say something is vegan and people nod in agreement, you I am Vegan and they ask 'what about....?'
Sometimes its actually worse to tell other vegans that you are vegan, because it suddenly becomes a top trumps of who boycotts what company and how much of an activist one is.




I agree that veganism is more than what you eat, its how you live. To me anyway.

 

[mlp]

The Vegan Society definition sums up what I had always thought (prior to the recent discussion in another thread); IMO, it encompasses things like habitat destruction and other *indirect* forms of suffering we inflict by our choices.

 

[mary1]

I tend to agree with the Vegan Society's definition. To me, a vegan person, is a person that makes the effort to be vegan. It doesn't mean they are perfect. It means they are consciously avoiding animal products and products tested on animals.

I don't think that new vegans have to dispose of their "pre-vegan" things (like leather shoes, wool coats) either. It's bought, done...better not to waste but buy vegan when it's time to replace. Heck, I still have a wool coat that will probably last years and years more from my pre-vegan days. Eventually when it's worn out and I can afford to buy something to replace it, I'm planning on making a pillow and toys for the cat with it.

 

[mlp]

You have misunderstood the point I was trying to make in that thread, which is not the same as des-nut's (although there are certain overlaps).

I'll try to explain it more clearly in a while.

 

[mlp]

So, this is a philosophy that I try to adhere to. (And let me start by saying that I do so very, very imperfectly.) Let’s call it respect for non-human beings (for convenience, I’ll just use the term “animal” for this post).

The first and foremost tenet is that it’s wrong to kill an animal for my pleasure or convenience (including satisfying my taste buds, providing clothing or accessories or anything else for me).

The second tenet is that it’s equally wrong to inflict suffering on an animal for my pleasure or convenience. “Suffering”, in this philosophy, encompasses not only physical pain, but emotional pain, reduction in quality of life, etc. and also encompasses things like taking away habitat, which at a minimum creates stress, and is likely to cost life.

The third tenet is that, while killing in self defense (or in defense of another) is morally justified because I am defending myself against the aggression of another, killing to obtain limited resources is not likewise justified. (In human terms, this is the difference between killing someone who is attacking me with a knife and killing someone because the winter’s store of food is sufficient for one person but not two.)

The fourth tenet is that one should respect the autonomy of animals to the extent consistent with their health, safety and happiness. In the context of wild animals, this entails leaving them to live their lives with minimal/no interference from us. With respect to domesticated animals, it becomes more complex, because of the dependency we’ve bred into them and the responsibility that falls on humans because of that.

It really doesn’t matter whether I would do the killing/inflict the suffering myself or have someone else do it for me. (In other words, if I pay a contractor to build a house on a fox den, I’m just as responsible for the deaths of those foxes as if I had taken a gun and shot them.)

Now we get into a whole area that is rife with conflicting interests. I recognize that, by my very existence, I’m going to cost lives: the lives of animals living in fields that are tilled to produce my food and clothing, the lives of animals who are killed by my car and by the vehicles used to transport goods to me, etc. I can’t come up with an ethical argument as to why any of those lives should be valued less than mine. So, the line I’m drawing is an arbitrary one, and it is this:

I will try to live in a way that minimizes the amount of suffering and death my existence causes to non-human animals.

It’s not ethically justifiable in the context of those lives that are inevitably lost because of my mere existence, but it is very much more ethically justifiable than living one’s life in disregard of how many lives, how much suffering, is caused by one’s life and lifestyle.

As I said in the beginning, I do this very imperfectly. I use more resources than I need to, I indulge myself too much. I’m trying to be more cognizant of the unintended consequences of my choices.

I think there’s value in recognizing the limits of any philosophy. For one, it’s necessary in order to hone one’s thinking and one’s choices. For another, defensiveness just makes it appear that one’s position is weak. (Isn’t that what we tend to think of the defensiveness of omnis, and yet there’s plenty of defensiveness to be seen coming from veg*ns.)

So, I don’t have an ethical* problem with someone buying used items made from leather, wool or fur; IMO, that doesn’t increase the market for new leather, wool, fur, etc., and, to the extent that it decreases the production of a new item (even one not made from animal parts), it affects fewer animals still living. It’s not a choice I make for myself, because it hurts my heart too much to wear/use such items.

*Please note I did not say “vegan” – I said “ethical.” What I've set out is some of my thinking about my interactions with/ responsibilities toward animals. I'm not saying my philosophy is vegan. I do think, however, that the definition of veganism proposed by the Vegan Society sets out a broader ethical framework than the "don't eat, wear or use animal products" definition.

 

[Clueless Git]

Interesting topic and some very good posts made already


"as far as possible and practical" WTF does that mean?

Anything is possible, including leaving our jobs/families to live, naked, in a dugout in a desert, feeding only on the berries of a single juniper bush.

What, out of all things that are possible is also practical though; That one is about as subjective as it gets.

 

[Clueless Git]

Veganism and ahimsa go very nicely together. They also stand on their own as separate ideologies.

Vegan ideology may stand without encompassing some aspects of Ahimsic idealogy.

Any idealogy that does not fully encompass vegan idealogy is something other than an Ahimsic idealogy though?

 

[das_nut]

I'm more or less with mlp on this (although we do differ in parts).

Veganism is about taking actions that reduce total animal suffering. Since I personally believe that used is often less harmful than new, I'll take used products over new, even those which contain some animal products (although my preference is for used-vegan, but I'll take used-non-vegan over new-vegan in many cases).

Reduce, reuse, recycle. All are good for animals. Only if that isn't practical, buy new.

 

[SummerRain]

Personally, I feel that it makes sense to make a clear distinction between vegan products on one hand, and what a vegan person might consume, use or wear on the other hand. Vegan products are products that do not contain any animal ingredients and have not been processed with any animal ingredients. For "vegan person" I tend to be more forgiving, and the definition (for me) is less clear-cut.

I agree with this pretty much. I think that there are some black and white areas, but also lots of grey when it comes to how a person defines a person being vegan, but not with products. Within reason, I think it's rude to assume that everybody else must adhere to your definition.

I dislike the concept of veganism being about more than just what you do and do not use, and what does and doesn't not contain animal products. For me, the definition of vegan is only useful in that it helps me easily define what I am willing to use and what I'm not. I only call myself a vegan because it makes life simpler to have a single word that gives the gist of what I don't eat/wear/etc.

For me, ethics are too complex and individual to easily fit under one umbrella that's shared by many people, and I feel that by trying to do so it stops "vegan" being useful to me, because it makes the word "vegan" woolly and confusing, and it probably wont be any clearer to people what I do and do not eat if I call myself a vegan and it has a load of ethical and animal rights connotations. If the word "vegan" became commonly known to be associated with ethics, animal rights, etc than I'd probably stop calling myself vegan.

I understand why veganism is often synonymous with stopping animal suffering on a larger scale as well as animal rights, I find it difficult to imagine living a vegan lifestyle and not having any sympathy with these ideas. But for me, I would prefer for the two to be separate, because it is more useful that way.