Veganishm

[Calliegirl]

Yes. I'd also add that because no vegan conforms entirely with that ideal we are all "veganish" to some degree.

Yes, but there is a big difference between someone who eats ribs once a month, and someone who uses a computer or inhales a gnat.

 

[prioritarian]

The fundamental question here is, I think, whether veganism is a sort of ethical/legal philosophy or whether its just a long list of products you're forbidden to use.

It could also be both of those things.

 

[prioritarian]

Yes, but there is a big difference between someone who eats ribs once a month, and someone who uses a computer or inhales a gnat.

Sure... but there can be a lot of grey area too. I don't see the term veganish as a way to validate flexitarianism; rather, I see it as a way to make veganism more inclusive (and avoid debates over whether non-barnivore approved beer is less vegan than honey or palm oil or white cane sugar or dark chocolate).

 

[Second Summer]

http://vegan.org/learn/
http://vegan.org/frequently-asked-questions/

Defining 'Vegan' -- Vegan Outreach

These pages talk about the term "vegan", and seem to give a mostly descriptive definition of "vegan person", but they don't give a normative definition of "veganism", i.e. the veganism doctrine. That was my point.

Edited to add: Though to be fair, I see now that you were talking about "veganism" as in "vegan practice". My bad. That said, I don't see anything in particular on their web pages that is incompatible ...?

I think the differences are more about interpretation or "practice" (as you wrote above). Nevertheless, both these organizations tolerate the use/consumption of animal products not associated with exploitation/cruelty by "vegans". This is a huge...erm...doctrinal difference.

I assume you are talking about honey, sugar processed with bone char etc. While Vegan Action don't try to prevent people who consumes such products from wearing the vegan label, they also don't allow such products to be certified as vegan products. As far as I can tell, Vegan Action and the Vegan Society are in agreement about what constitutes a vegan product.

(I think it's important to distinguish between "vegan person", "vegan product" and "the doctrine of veganism" - I think you can't necessarily directly deduce one from the other.)

 

[prioritarian]

As far as I can tell, Vegan Action and the Vegan Society are in agreement about what constitutes a vegan product.

I think there is some agreement about what is a vegan product in a strict sense (e.g. stuff you'd bring to a potluck or would qualify for certification) but disagreement about what a vegan could consume at home, at a restaurant/pub, or while travelling and still call themselves vegan.

Let me quote Matt Ball of vegan outreach:

For example, if Peter Singer (author of Animal Liberation) were to eat a dish that contains hidden dairy when at a colleague's house, or if Carole Morton (who runs Green Acres Farm Sanctuary and is a humane agent in a rural PA county) were to eat the eggs laid by the hens she has rescued ... do I want to cut them off, shun them from our vegan club?​

I also answer no; but this is a controversial position. I think the term veganish could not only promote inclusiveness but could also help defuse doctrinal conflict. For example, veganish could be used to describe those with an affinity for consequentialist veganism as opposed to more deontic veganism.

 

[FortyTwo]

As long as someone is trying to make a difference, is consistently educating themselves, and doesn't flat out eat products that are obviously from animals, I have no issue calling them a vegan.

Like if someone goes vegan but has no idea what gelatin is and then one day finds out that their Altoids contain beef after reading about it in an article in Vegan Monthly or whatever-the-hell, and then adjusts their lifestyle around that, I'm not going to get all preachy on them for not knowing about it.

There are plenty of well-meaning vegetarians out there who don't read the ingredients on everything they buy. To put them off by being aggressive and potentially lead them back to copping out with Meatless Mondays or something, just because you want to be pure and show that you really recognize what a true vegan is, will always seem silly to me.

And inventing buzzwords around it or truncating the word or coming up with new red tape for already impatient and money-grubbing corporations to handle is definitely not going to help anything when we can barely get slaughterhouses even remotely regulated.

 

[flyingsnail]

The vegan ideal refers to veganism, obviously. The distinction between theoria and praxis - between the ideal / teachings / theory and how followers choose to implement it in their daily lives - is one that is common and widely accepted in other philosophies, ideologies and belief systems, e.g. Christianity. The theory is more strict (the 10 Commandments etc.), whereas the practice / implementation is often not perfect. The followers, e.g. Christians, are often accepted as such despite their departures from the theory, though sometimes they go too far. Exactly where that line is in the case of veganism is difficult to articulate, and obviously opinions vary ...

This is, I think, a bit circular. So the vegan ideal is veganism....but why is veganism ideal? Ideal in what regard?

 

[flyingsnail]

It could also be both of those things.

Not really, a long list of forbidden products is, in itself, non-normative where as an ethical/legal theory is normative. You could try to derive the forbidden list from the ethical/legal theory but in this case the ethics/legal theory comes first and the forbidden list second. In veganism you seem to have the opposite, ,that is, you have a forbidden list of products that people try to haphazardly justify by a variety of means......which is characteristic of dogmas.

In any case, you didn't answer my questions. What is the vegan ideal? How do you measure degrees of departure? How much can one depart from the ideal while still being vegan? I'm afraid without being concrete about this, there isn't much meaning to it.

 

[ledboots]

From 1951:

"Recently the Vegan Society adopted revised and extended rules which among other things clarify the goal towards which the movement aspires.

The Society's object and meaning of the word "veganism", have until now been matters of inference and personal predilection, are now defined as follows:

'The object of the Society shall be to end the exploitation of animals by man"; and 'The word veganism shall mean the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals.' "

 

[flyingsnail]

'The object of the Society shall be to end the exploitation of animals by man"; and 'The word veganism shall mean the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals.' "

Okay, that is getting somewhere, but there are somethings that are vague. By "animals" do they mean just mammals, as is usually the case, or do they mean the entire animal kingdom? What does it mean to exploit an animal? For example, if an action necessarily involves the killing of some animals does that act exploit animals? But ignoring these issues, how exactly does someone live without exploiting animals? The killing and use of insects, for example, is critical for our survival as many are pest to the crops we demand on. But even with mammals, we cannot avoid killing and exploiting them.

But at this this quote could be "the ideal"....an ideal that cannot be achieved. But then....how much can one depart and still be vegan?

 

[ledboots]

I think it is, like everything else, ultimately up to the individual in his current circumstance.

Certainly eating a chicken, for example, could never be vegan, but insects are tiny and everywhere so far more difficult to avoid harming. We do the best we can and still live our lives.

Veganism is more an art than a science, perhaps.

 

[flyingsnail]

I think it is, like everything else, ultimately up to the individual in his current circumstance.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, veganism is up to the individual? So, for example, for some vegans eggs may be okay?

Certainly eating a chicken, for example, could never be vegan, but insects are tiny and everywhere so far more difficult to avoid harming. We do the best we can and still live our lives.

Its not just that insects are hard to avoid harming because they are small but we also actively kill and exploit them in plant agriculture and its difficult to see how we could avoid doing so.....yet some insect products are on the forbidden vegan ingredient list. Okay, so eating a chicken can never be vegan but eating wheat, the cultivation of which, kills rodents and other wild-life....is vegan. What is the fundamental difference? I'm not saying there isn't a difference....but how one answers this question will effect how one implements concerns for animal welfare/rights in their life and I have difficulty seeing how, based on the answer, one moves from concerns with animal rights/welfare to veganism. For example, if one argues that the wheat is the lesser evil because it results in less animal suffering overall.....how do you use that principle (the minimization of animal suffering) and derive veganism? And if the principle doesn't imply veganism the use of it seems like an ad-hoc attempt to justify veganism by any means.

If being more an "art" means that veganism is going to be vague, wishy-washy and inconsistent then I can't imagine how its going to help promote animal rights and animal welfare.

 

[ledboots]

I think of art as a way to reach people at a different level than facts or research. My Christmas gifts this year to non- vegans of spice blends in cute jars, vegan cookie mixes in cute jars, or my 3-nut brownies are works of convincing vegan art of sorts, I think.

Obviously in today's world there is going to be death in food production. We all understand this, even the vegan society, which says we do 'what is practical.'

The world is not black and white. Each vegan decides where he draws the line, depending on his circumstances. I don't think there will ever be an answer to satisfy those who don't see the shades of gray and how they differ from one another.

If we eat, walk, work, breathe, live, animals will die because of our presence. We can just minimize our contribution to the deliberate cruelty and exploitation of animals the best we can.

 

[Moll Flanders]

I think what we have is enough. There doesn't need to be a new term for every person who thinks they're so special that everything should be redefined for the way they eat.
If you eat meat occasionally, you're an omnivore.
If you eat dairy occasionally, but no meat, you're a vegetarian.
It really is that simple.

Very true.

Personally I don't think we need a different term either, we just to be more welcoming or accepting of new people. I do think that there is a small percentage of vegans who seem to want to reject vegan wannabes so I wish we could be more welcoming as a group. I am planning on joining a AR /AW group next year and I hopefully will be doing some real life activism as I want more people to become vegan or vegetarian. I find some online interactions with other vegans to be frustrating but I'm not helping by debating about philosophy or inconsequential details and I think I need to be doing something concrete.

 

[KLS52]

While a more lax definition would suit me because I'm one of those oh-so-close, I would not like to see the definition watered down.

 

[flyingsnail]

Obviously in today's world there is going to be death in food production. We all understand this, even the vegan society, which says we do 'what is practical.'

Where do they say that? Their definition is:

"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"

The world is not black and white. Each vegan decides where he draws the line, depending on his circumstances. I don't think there will ever be an answer to satisfy those who don't see the shades of gray and how they differ from one another.

There world isn't black and white....but where are the shades of gray in veganism? Are you suggesting that veganism is up to the individual? If so, what meaning does it have? So for some vegans eating eggs is okay while eating beef may be okay for others? Just where the individual decides to draw the line?

We can just minimize our contribution to the deliberate cruelty and exploitation of animals the best we can.

As I asked before, how do you derive veganism from the principle that one should minimize animal suffering? Then again...you now seem to be saying that veganism has no specific definition and is up to the individual so I suppose one becomes vegan by just calling themselves such.

 

[ledboots]

I just can't be black and white enough here, apparently.

Obviously, eating or wearing animals is not vegan. The gray areas come in things like used cars with leather seats, or foods "made in a factory that processes milk", bone char sugar issues, or the creatures that are killed as a result of modern crop agriculture.

Individual vegans draw their lines depending upon which part of the world they live in, and what their resources and living situations are.

I see that you don't get or like veganism, most people don't. Welcome to the majority.

 

[flyingsnail]

Obviously, eating or wearing animals is not vegan. The gray areas come in things like used cars with leather seats, or foods "made in a factory that processes milk", bone char sugar issues, or the creatures that are killed as a result of modern crop agriculture.

Alright, so then the questions in my previous posts still apply. Why is eating a rodent not vegan but eating a plant crop, the cultivation of which kills rodents, is vegan? My point here is that one has to answer these questions with specific moralistic reasoning and that reasoning is going to have consequences.....consequences that are unlikely to be consistent with veganism. Now, alternatively, if veganism is just a list of forbidden products then one doesn't really have to answer such questions. But in this case why should anybody care about veganism?

I see that you don't get or like veganism, most people don't. Welcome to the majority.

Last time I checked most people aren't trying to make sense out of veganism from an animal rights/welfare perspective....including most vegans.

But if one cannot provide cogent arguments for veganism, how is it a good vehicle to promote animal rights/welfare? I'm not really concerned that there are some people that have decided to avoid products on the forbidden vegan list, what I'm concerned with is animal rights/welfare and the impact veganism has on these issues.

 

[ledboots]

Think I will bow out of this thread for awhile.

 

[Blobbenstein]

Why is eating a rodent not vegan but eating a plant crop, the cultivation of which kills rodents, is vegan?

maybe a better question would be 'why is it vegan to eat plant crops, but not vegan to eat rodents directly killed in the harvesting of those crops?'

I think that veganism isn't just one thing....some of it has rational reasoning, and some of it is just intuition.
Would most people eat a human that had been killed in the harvesting of those crops?...