Veganism-Basis for all moral consideration of Animals?

[Graeme M]

Can veganism be regarded as the basis for all moral consideration of other, sentient animals?

From what I can tell, everything that we can possibly do to be fair to other animals as a consequence of believing we should have moral concern for them is exactly consistent with veganism. Put another way, veganism seems to be an already known and agreed term that describes including other, sentient animals within our moral scope. It is, if you like, a system of ideas and practices that addresses all possible ways we can act morally towards other animals. Even animal rights theory falls within the moral scope of veganism.

Can you think of another term or ethical framework that describes a systemic, foundational set of ethics and principles that could guide everyone in how best to act towards other animals. Does it seem reasonable to think of veganism as the fundamental ethical framework that can govern all human interactions with other animals?

 

[Col]

The definition is inclusive of consequentialism and ontological moral standpoints, and more, I would say also the main world religions, and fundamental. as there is scope for differences as well over and above the simple principle.
You mention fairness, interactions and governance - these seem to me still to not be guaranteed, fairness to all in what happens in our free lives is not a given; it is good in our interactions to remain ethically grounded.

 

[veganfortheanimalss]

Let's first define veganism. According to Wikipedia:
Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products—particularly in diet—and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals.

If we go by this definition, the words 'abstaining' and 'reject' primarily indicates veganism is a reactionary movement. It's something borne out of, NOT DOING AN ACTION, which will increase pain, suffering, death of animals. So basically all you have to do is not do something(not buy animal products breed and sold by other humans, or not breed and exploit animals yourself) and you can be a vegan. With this we can find where veganism falls short as a movement or philosophy, on ethical grounds. If you find an animal hurt and crying out in pain, it would still be vegan to not help and simply walk past it. You can walk past a crying abandoned kitten or a puppy which without help will die soon and still technically be a vegan. Basically all PROACTIVE forms of helping animals does not fall under veganism.

But I get where this is all from. Basically humans are so evil, getting them to first not do something evil is a good start. And so, veganism is a good start, but falls short in terms of proactive forms of ethics.

 

[Graeme M]

Let's first define veganism. According to Wikipedia:
Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products—particularly in diet—and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals.

I suppose I don't agree that is really the definiton of veganism. That suggests that first and foremost, veganism is a practice of not doing something as you point out. As a consequence there is an associated philosophy. I think it's the other way round - the philosophy/ethics comes first, practice is a consequence of that.

I have sort of paraphrased the proper definition in this way:

"Veganism recognises the inherent value and dignity of other species and aims to treat them fairly by our choices whenever we can."

I think that's a proactive stance and directs us to do/not do certain things.

 

[veganfortheanimalss]

Yeah, almost everyone I come across have their own definition of veganism. But if we go by the definition of wikipedia, it falls short in proactive forms of ethics/morals.

 

[Col]

I suppose I don't agree that is really the definiton of veganism. That suggests that first and foremost, veganism is a practice of not doing something as you point out. As a consequence there is an associated philosophy. I think it's the other way round - the philosophy/ethics comes first, practice is a consequence of that.

I have sort of paraphrased the proper definition in this way:

"Veganism recognises the inherent value and dignity of other species and aims to treat them fairly by our choices whenever we can."

I think that's a proactive stance and directs us to do/not do certain things.

I respect the wish to treat fairly and your authentic belief, I also try to do that in my life it is in the 'as much as possible and practicable' Vegan Society code.
it is with the not exploiting in the Vegan Society definition that also protects, from for example human constructs, such as balancing evil with evil.
I think there is value in the simplicity of the Vegan Society definition.
The Wikipedia definition is not correct why would it be 'particularly in diet'?

 

[veganfortheanimalss]

it is with the not exploiting in the Vegan Society definition that also protects, from for example human constructs, such as balancing evil with evil.

Yeah. His definition would mean that. Big problem in terms of ethics. We do not want to be a part of killing/exploiting animals just because the killing/exploiting is going to happen anyway whether we be a part of it or not. Nor balancing an unintentional killing with an intentional killing.

-------------

Definition of veganism

What is a vegan and vegan food? What does veganism mean?

www.vegansociety.com

Let's dissect the vegan society's definition:
"Veganism is a philosophy and 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; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

The above definition "promotes", so it is also proactive to address the human induced cruelty on animals. Its a philosophy towards addressing animal suffering due to human actions.
So with this definition, we see in terms of ethics, veganism falls short in dealing with non-human/natural animal suffering. Like the 2 examples/scenarios I pointed to earlier.

 

[veganfortheanimalss]

Testing the definition through some more examples.

First scenario:
If for example a vegan would train dogs to do nice tricks and put up a show, and use the money for saving street dogs in sanctuaries instead of them being killed by lethal injection in kill-shelters, the above definition of veganism will conflict with the good ethics of this scenario. But it's a very remote unlikely scenario. So issuing a blanket ban on exploiting is practical I guess.



The below examples deals with the last sentence of the definition.

Second scenario;
A vegan rescues a hen and eats it's unfertilised egg, that would conflict with the above definition, even though there is no ethical problem with the consumption(provided the rescuer cannot spay the hen due to financial/medical situation, and hen doesn't like to eat its own egg). It's an unlikely low-probability scenario.

Third scenario:
A vegan eating road kill is no problem ethically but would conflict with the society's definition. Again remote unlikely scenario, because its unhygienic.

Fourth scenario:
A vegan eating an animal which died naturally is also no problem ethically but would conflict with the society's definition. Again remote scenario, because its body would be have a high probability of having diseases and people don't eat it.

Fifth scenario:
You mistakenly buy/order/delivered food which has animal products in it. And you have no one to give that to. Wasting food is more unethical than eating it, but would conflict with the society's definition. A not so uncommon scenario.

In the last 4 scenarios, one problem will be, it would dilute the psychological barrier that animals and their products aren't food.

Just some thought experiments I wanted to type out.

 

[Tom L.]

I suppose I don't agree that is really the definiton of veganism. That suggests that first and foremost, veganism is a practice of not doing something as you point out. As a consequence there is an associated philosophy. I think it's the other way round - the philosophy/ethics comes first, practice is a consequence of that.

(Your post only partially quoted- bold emphasis mine) I've thought about this, off and on, for some time. I started the "not doing something" part back in 1968, when I became pescatarian. I remember that, at the time, even vegetarianism seemed too extreme for me... until I found myself getting attached to the fish in my aquarium... and it was no more tuna fish sandwiches for me after that. It was quite some time until I even heard the term "vegan" and the rationale for it. But each step turned out to be easier than I had expected- even though my food choices were narrowed somewhat.

But then, in 1993, I started doing something: specifically, adopting animals who needed homes. I find that this is how most people express their concern for animals. They regard giving up foods and other animal-derived products as more difficult.

I never saw it that way at all.

Not consuming meat, fish, eggs, and milk wasn't any more work; I was just not doing something I had previously always done. But my animal companions were a new responsibility, and required more of a positive effort on my part. I had to purchase food, litter, and other things for them. They need checkups, and sometimes treatments, at a veterinarian. They sometimes needed me to give them medications. If I wanted to take a trip for more than a day or two, or had to be away for a time for my job, I had to make arrangements for my animal companions.

I didn't regret or resent any of this- but for me, caring for another sentient being- even goldfishes in an aquarium- required much more positive effort.

I do agree with you that someone first adopts the underlying philosophy, and then they learn to put that into everyday practice.

 

[Graeme M]

Testing the definition through some more examples.

I think you can always find ways to show the definition might conflict with making ethical choices; after all it isn't perfect, the world is not perfect, nor are we perfect. My point is that when you get down to it, there has to be a reason why veganism says don't eat meat, or don't exploit animals, etc. The reason is that we can have moral concern for other animals and veganism is saying just what that concern is. It doesn't say "love all animals", or "ensure all animals have a good life", or "be kind to animals". It makes quite specific claims - that our moral concern is that of fairness and justice for other species when our actions can affect them.

Various advocates and ethicists have come up with different ways to frame this, for example Singer's equal consideration idea, or rights theory, etc. But all simply come back to the basic idea of fairness and justice. Fairness in this context means to take into account the interests of other species, and justice means to do that consistently. Veganism is as far as I know the only broadly encompassing term that reflects that commitment and the consequent practice by saying that we should have such moral concern for other animals. Personally, I'd like a better term because veganism is now quite corrupted in the public perception, but why invent yet another word? The idea underlying veganism and all the other formulations is essentially the same.

My position on all of this is to propose that veganism is the ethical framework, the basic system of ethics, that extends moral scope to include other, sentient species when we can and that its core proposition is that of fairness to other animals. Everything flows from that, including rights theory. In terms of rights, fairness and justice can be expressed as aiming to respect the basic rights of other animals to their own lives, to be free, and not be treated cruelly. The exact same rights we respect for human beings. In terms of the Vegan Societies definition, fairness and justice are implicit in exactly the same terms - the wish to prevent the exploitation of other animals (ie to be free and able to live their own lives) and to not be treated cruelly.

I do agree with you that someone first adopts the underlying philosophy, and then they learn to put that into everyday practice.

This is what I am getting at. The "philosophy" - the underlying idea - is that of moral concern for other animals, something that by and large other species don't have. You wouldn't have adopted strays or stopped eating meat or whatever without that. It is the only thing that can lead you to care for the animals just for being themselves. Or, as I put it, to recognise the inherent value and dignity of other species and therefore want to be fair to them. Farmers treat animals well in many contexts, but they aren't really doing this only from the need to respect the animal's dignity but to ensure maximal efficiency and productivity. They even tell you that - a stressed animal will not provide maximum return. And that is exploitation in the sense that the vegan definition is exposing.

So my take is to advocate to others that veganism just IS what it means to worry about other animals for themselvs and strive to make fairer choices when I can. Those choices can be positive (by doing something) or negative (by not doing something). It doesn't matter which because what matters is context, my personal circumstances and what I am able to do. Veganism is all we need to describe the best, most rational and most effective ways for humans to interact with other, sentient species.

I tried to sum this up simply in a recent blog post:

Veganism as Justice for Animals

Several critics have taken us to task for promoting veganism when we say we are about justice for other animals. Their reasons seem to stem from a belief that veganism is an anti-human, rigid and u…

justustoo.blog

My question here is whether this makes sense or is there another general term/concept for this that you know of. Not even necessarily veganism but perhaps some other ethical theory. I just do not know of one.

 

[Col]

Testing the definition through some more examples.

First scenario:
If for example a vegan would train dogs to do nice tricks and put up a show, and use the money for saving street dogs in sanctuaries instead of them being killed by lethal injection in kill-shelters, the above definition of veganism will conflict with the good ethics of this scenario. But it's a very remote unlikely scenario. So issuing a blanket ban on exploiting is practical I guess.



The below examples deals with the last sentence of the definition.

Second scenario;
A vegan rescues a hen and eats it's unfertilised egg, that would conflict with the above definition, even though there is no ethical problem with the consumption(provided the rescuer cannot spay the hen due to financial/medical situation, and hen doesn't like to eat its own egg). It's an unlikely low-probability scenario.

Third scenario:
A vegan eating road kill is no problem ethically but would conflict with the society's definition. Again remote unlikely scenario, because its unhygienic.

Fourth scenario:
A vegan eating an animal which died naturally is also no problem ethically but would conflict with the society's definition. Again remote scenario, because its body would be have a high probability of having diseases and people don't eat it.

Fifth scenario:
You mistakenly buy/order/delivered food which has animal products in it. And you have no one to give that to. Wasting food is more unethical than eating it, but would conflict with the society's definition. A not so uncommon scenario.

In the last 4 scenarios, one problem will be, it would dilute the psychological barrier that animals and their products aren't food.

Just some thought experiments I wanted to type out.

I find all these scenarios exploitative and against the Vegan Society definition, and against Graeme's definition of 'value and dignity' as in each example someone is used. Also 2-5 seem contrary to Wikipedia definition of regarding animals as a commodity, and maybe 1 if being trained as an unwilling paid performer is commodifying.
They are scenarios where utilitarianism - (make the greatest good for the greatest number) might take the view of the abuser.