Let's Make Veganism Less Strict

[majorbloodnok]

Thank you, @silva; just the point I was trying to make only better put.

 

[vegan89]

By not stating it's an opinion completely changes the meaning, so it would be bad writing to not differenciate between your opinion and a statement of fact.

Readers are supposed to be able to think and differentiate between statements of opinion and statements of fact without the writer specifically stating something is an opinion.

It is not considered bad writing for a writer to fail to write something like "In my opinion..." before every particular opinion they type out.

You do come across as believing your own ethics have a higher importance than others.

Most people with an opinion think or at least suspect that their particular view is correct until they encounter evidence or logical reasoning to the contrary. That's not a problem unless you are too closed-minded to investigate other points of view or give fair consideration to evidence or logic that contradicts your view.

There are too many injustices in this world to fight. To judge others based on their adhering to a common view of food will only hinder any effort to change, and will have your beliefs seen as ignorant.

Having an opinion about the ethical nature of certain behaviors in society does not make a person ignorant. Society "judges" the behavior of others within it in many cases I suspect you would agree with, which are why many actions individuals take are illegal.

Why is it fine for these other things to be illegal (i.e. "judged" by society), but not acceptable in your view for me to judge the ethics of other people's dietary habits? Your views don't seem logically consistent, because I'm guessing you think it's fine for society to "judge" others within it who do things that you presumably think are unethical... whether it's a person violating animal welfare laws by not taking adequate care of a dog, a rapist who rapes others, or a businessman who wants to dump industrial waste in the environment. The ethical nature of these people's actions are "judged" by society all the time... but you aren't complaining about that.

And not just legally judged either... but also judged from an ethical or moral standpoint.

 

[majorbloodnok]

Readers are supposed to be able to think and differentiate between statements of opinion and statements of fact without the writer specifically stating something is an opinion.

It is not considered bad writing for a writer to fail to write something like "In my opinion..." before every particular opinion they type out.

It is, however, considered a manipulative tactic to imply something to be fact when it is actually opinion, such as you did in your earlier post.

Most people with an opinion think or at least suspect that their particular view is correct until they encounter evidence or logical reasoning to the contrary. That's not a problem unless you are too closed-minded to investigate other points of view or give fair consideration to evidence or logic that contradicts your view.

I would suggest all people with an opinion believe their view is correct. It would be illogical to hold a view one thought was wrong!

However, many people allow that their set of ethical priorities is only one of many valid possibilities, and that someone else’s set may have equal validity despite differing from one’s own. If you give to a children’s charity, am I wrong for giving to a medical charity instead?

Having an opinion about the ethical nature of certain behaviors in society does not make a person ignorant.

No, but dictating that all other opinions are invalid is simplistic and, if trying to dictate to a majority, will definitely be perceived as ignorant behaviour. Change requires influence; a carrot rather than a big stick.

 

[Graeme M]

I don't think it is worth worrying about redefining veganism or making it less strict because I have come to the view that's focusing on the wrong idea. At the end of the day, veganism is about ethics. To come back to what I said earlier, I wonder if it wouldn't be better just to drop the whole "vegan" thing? About 98% of the population thinks vegans are extreme kooks and that their diet (which is all they think veganism is about) is dangerous. That doesn't help to advance the goal of preventing animal exploitation.

What if there was just the idea of veganism and those people who take it on board? No-one need bother about whether or not they even ARE vegan, rather they are free to choose what they do. Vegan advocacy would still focus on why animal eploitation is wrong and how people can make better choices and what is everyone's favourite vegan recipe and why Dr Greger is the font of all nutritional knowledge, but that's as far as it needs to go.

No vegan gate-keeping, no shaming non-vegans or not-good-enough-vegans, no moral high-ground grandstanding (even though it is the moral high-ground...). This stuff just puts people off.

We know that the proportion of the population who identifies as genuinely ethical vegan is pretty small and not really growing very much. Surely 20% of the population sort of vegan-ish is better than 2% of the population pure vegan?

I wrote about this a while back, I can't recall if I've shared that here before.

My vegan elevator pitch

“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 …

gm136.wordpress.com

I have slightly changed my thinking on this since then, but more in the sense that I am more confident about the underlying idea. I wrote about that recently too, if anyone is interested.

The Philosophy of Ethical Veganism Explained

My explanation of just what ethical veganism really is. Summary: Veganism is an ethical position, the idea that we extend moral concern to other (sentient) species. We are already vegan to other pe…

gm136.wordpress.com

 

[wildr0se2]

I thought about using the mostly vegan, or almost vegan label myself. But after thinking on it for a while I decided not to. (I may have over-analyzed it - something I sometime do. )

My thinking involves the The Vegan Society definition of Veganism. There ARE other definitions and who is to say which is the best. But I don't think it can be argued that The Vegan Society's definition is not a good one. There are also definitions for "dietary vegans". But IMHO, dietary vegans are just strict vegetarians and should just call themselves that.

The Vegan's society for an (ethical) vegan 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”

First off lets take a look at "possible and practicable". Who decides what is possible and practicable. That must be up to the individual. What is P&P for a guy living in a dorm, is not the same as the girls working in a restaurant to put themselves thru college. And its also different from the millionaire who has a chef, and that is different from the pregnant mom with 2 girls shopping in a mall.

The next words I want to spotlight is "seeks to exclude". They could have just said "excludes" but they added the "seeks to". IMHO they did that to avoid the requirement of perfection. Seeks to also implies intent. I also like the synonym "strives". So basically if you really "want to" be vegan - you are one.

I'm not watering down the meaning. its right there in the definition.

So fellow vegans, you don't need to stop calling yourself vegan and start saying, "I'm mostly vegan." You are just "vegan".

This is why I enjoy this site and not Reddit's r/vegan because I don't feel judged every time I slip up and I feel encouraged to keep trying. Reddit is famous for the "you're plant based not vegan" argument and it's very frustrating. I always worry I'm not good enough to be vegan. I saw one Reddit post where Hershey's made oat milk chocolate bars, and a handful of people were saying how shitty Hershey is as a company (which yes, they shouldn't get their cocoa from providers that exploit children) but some even claimed it wasn't vegan to buy the oat milk bars from them due to that. Like...the child slavery thing is a separate issue. And a Reddit user a while ago telling me that anyone who goes back to eating animal products was never vegan (I think I was talking about my history of slip ups and how I was starting out again)...like...I get scared to call myself vegan now.

 

[shyvas]

This is why I enjoy this site and not Reddit's r/vegan because I don't feel judged every time I slip up and I feel encouraged to keep trying. Reddit is famous for the "you're plant based not vegan" argument and it's very frustrating. I always worry I'm not good enough to be vegan. I saw one Reddit post where Hershey's made oat milk chocolate bars, and a handful of people were saying how shitty Hershey is as a company (which yes, they shouldn't get their cocoa from providers that exploit children) but some even claimed it wasn't vegan to buy the oat milk bars from them due to that. Like...the child slavery thing is a separate issue. And a Reddit user a while ago telling me that anyone who goes back to eating animal products was never vegan (I think I was talking about my history of slip ups and how I was starting out again)...like...I get scared to call myself vegan now.

The only way to be sure that the chocolate you are purchasing hasn't used child labour is to consult the following list:

Chocolate List

Chocolate LIST The list below reflects Food Empowerment Project’s (F.E.P.) most recent research on companies that make vegan products containing chocolate to find out if they source their chocolate from areas where the worst forms of child labor and/or slavery…

foodispower.org

Understanding Our Chocolate List

UNDERSTANDING FOOD EMPOWERMENT PROJECT’S CHOCOLATE LIST Food Empowerment Project (F.E.P.) publishes a list of companies that sell chocolates that we do and do not recommend. Every company on this list (recommended or not) has to make at least one vegan chocolate…

foodispower.org

 

[bgmnts]

It would be likely impossible to be 100% vegan due to the nature of our consumer products and food.

However, I make every effort to purchase necessities that are vegan made and vegan friendly, and if I know something contains things like bone or whatever, I will not use them. Even medicine I try for the vegan friendly ones first.
Just about doing the most you can isn't it?

 

[g0rph]

It would be likely impossible to be 100% vegan due to the nature of our consumer products and food.

However, I make every effort to purchase necessities that are vegan made and vegan friendly, and if I know something contains things like bone or whatever, I will not use them. Even medicine I try for the vegan friendly ones first.
Just about doing the most you can isn't it?

I'm not sure, that in today's world there is more you can do, outside of activism.

 

[1956]

The title of this Thread has Always bothered me - Veganism is what it Is! If it is made “less” strict it is No longer Veganism!!
People are “Free” to follow Veganism as strictly as they wish… However, if one is not following it strictly calling oneself Vegan creates confusion…
Recently I have become friendly with a lady in her late 80’s… I help her in her garden, sometimes I bring lunch for us - Vegan of course - however, she likes to offer me lunch as well… When we first started out I was Very careful to explain what being Vegan meant and she seemed to understand… She also has other friends who Also call themselves Vegan, but it has become Very clear to me that they are not Vegan… Apparently they have talked about making dishes and brushing it with egg as well as eating things with egg in them so this has caused Confusion!
Without telling my friend that these people are not Vegan I have explained to her that I don’t eat Anything that is Animal related which includes eggs and honey… It was easy for her to understand that I don’t eat any Animals, Fishes or Dairy Products, but she became confused because her friends are Not as strict. For each of us we Know what being Vegan means to Us, however for the General Public I think that it is Much easier if we stick to the Vegan Society rules when discussing Veganism in public…

 

[Tom L.]

If someone doesn't feel up to actually doing what would make them vegan (or not doing things that would make them non-vegan), they could just do what they feel up to, find the word that fits, and call themselves that. On the other hand, this is NOT a vegan world (yet), and an aspiring vegan shouldn't judge themselves too harshly if they inadvertently eat or buy something derived from animals. I'd still call them "vegan".

Mostly, I guess I'm confused as to why someone would want to call themselves vegan so badly, if they either don't know what that word means or aren't willing to behave in the way that would make them vegan. After all, there are lots of other terms that might fit: vegetarian, lactovegetarian, strict vegetarian, plant-based... I don't mind at all if someone calls me "vegan", but I usually explain why I use leather shoes, and why this alone makes me "strict vegetarian" rather than "vegan".

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Neither of these last two comments seems to address the point of my original article and discussion from a few years ago.

It's not about someone wanting to call themselves vegan or not, it is (to me) about what is more effective in reducing animal suffering which is my goal.

We should not worry about whether to please someone who says "I want to be called a vegan and eat any chocolate" nor she would be so concerned about someone who's made the effort to be fully vegan who is annoyed by someone else calling themselves vegan and eating an egg. What matters is the animal suffering.

If a stricter definition would be best at reducing animal suffering, we should do that.
If a less strict definition would be best at reducing animal suffering (as I believe), we should do that.

Let me repaste some of the original points I made in 2022:

people caught in this middle ground between vegetarian and veganism as it´s currently practiced will be less likely to join vegan groups and get into activism. And it probably inhibits celebrities from coming out as vegan and supporting the cause.

There was someone on the forum once (or Veggie Views which merged into this one) some years ago that explained that they eat a vegetarian cheese pizza when at a restaurant to make their lifestyle more attractive to their friends. There were some debates about this, and after a while I think the person left. They might have been a good ally.

you should call yourself plant-based instead of vegan” is basically like saying “you can´t be in our club”. People want to belong to a group. If they don´t fit in with the vegans, they might end up somewhere else.

A common reason for giving up is the social difficulty. A less strict definition would make people more likely to stick to it.

This will make vegan seem more accessible, and lead to more people trying it.

A less strict definition = a bigger movement = more animal suffering.

I still don't see any evidence that those of us who feels this way are winning this argument, though.
It still feels like 50-50 (which leads to maintaining status quo) or even 60-40 against me.
(Although I don't follow the movement as closely as I used to so I could be wrong.)

I don't feel like there's any chance of getting changes to definitions unless more people agree.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

The title of this Thread has Always bothered me - Veganism is what it Is! If it is made “less” strict it is No longer Veganism!!
People are “Free” to follow Veganism as strictly as they wish… However, if one is not following it strictly calling oneself Vegan creates confusion…
Recently I have become friendly with a lady in her late 80’s… I help her in her garden, sometimes I bring lunch for us - Vegan of course - however, she likes to offer me lunch as well… When we first started out I was Very careful to explain what being Vegan meant and she seemed to understand… She also has other friends who Also call themselves Vegan, but it has become Very clear to me that they are not Vegan… Apparently they have talked about making dishes and brushing it with egg as well as eating things with egg in them so this has caused Confusion!
Without telling my friend that these people are not Vegan I have explained to her that I don’t eat Anything that is Animal related which includes eggs and honey… It was easy for her to understand that I don’t eat any Animals, Fishes or Dairy Products, but she became confused because her friends are Not as strict. For each of us we Know what being Vegan means to Us, however for the General Public I think that it is Much easier if we stick to the Vegan Society rules when discussing Veganism in public…

This is a fair point because if I get my way and vegans are allowed to eat milk chocolate (at least in other people's homes, restaurants, when travelling abroad) then vegans who understandably don't want to eat milk chocolate will come across as problematic when refusing to eat it.

I've then solved the problem of people who are stuck in the middle between vegetarian and vegan but then might still then require a new category of vegan and "strict vegan" or something else so you could still end up with an extra category being needed.

So I'm not saying there are no downsides to my plan.

I'm saying that IF I'm right that my plan reduces animal suffering we should do it regardless of some confusions that might be caused for vegans.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Another problem with my plan of a less strict definition is you might get vegan restaurants including milk chocolate and pasta made out of eggs, which I think we can agree we definitely don't want. Nowadays you can be pretty sure that a restaurant that calls itself vegan wouldn't do that.

I actually don't think vegan restaurants should be doing that, even if the definition were changed.

That wouldn't fit with my idea that the exceptions should be occasional (foreign holiday, grandparent's house) rather than routine.

So if you change the definition I would propose that a product sold as vegan (including a whole restaurant) must still be fully vegan. This should avoid the restaurant confusion.

So I don't want to change that definition of how a product is defined.

What I'm saying is a person should be able to define themselves as vegan even if they occasionally consume non vegan products (as long as it's a product with a leather tag rather than a leather jacket, an egg in the cake your Mom made at her own birthday party rather than an omelette or deliberately buying a cake you like with an egg all the time in your weekly supermarket shop).

 

[alleycat]

Only 2 out of the five medications I'm on can be considered vegan, 2 are maybe as even the ones that are made vegan are made in facilities that are not. 1 could be vegan if Dr would prescribe injectables, but because I already have 2 injection a week she doesn't want to give me more because of infection risks. It sucks having a f#cked immune system. I either stand by the standards I want or medications. Some days the guilt of what I am taking weighs heavy.

 

[1956]

Only 2 out of the five medications I'm on can be considered vegan, 2 are maybe as even the ones that are made vegan are made in facilities that are not. 1 could be vegan if Dr would prescribe injectables, but because I already have 2 injection a week she doesn't want to give me more because of infection risks. It sucks having a f#cked immune system. I either stand by the standards I want or medications. Some days the guilt of what I am taking weighs heavy.

Hey there @alleycat
Medications that are Necessary for one’s health and wellbeing are Not something that matters in the grand scheme of things in my view… Taking medication - which is possibly not Vegan - in order to stay healthy is Not going against Vegan ethics… It’s quite different than eating Non Vegan food because it’s convenient or to “fit in” with others…
Keep yourself healthy in order to be the Best Vegan you can be!
So sorry that you have immune issues, I hope that you are able to live As well as possible and that you are guilt Free!

 

[Tom L.]

@alleycat I didn't re-check the definition of "veganism" before I started typing this post, so I'm going by memory: as I understand it, the original definition of veganism was to avoid harm to animals insofar as it is possible and practical. Your post just above explains clearly why you have a valid reason not to use the vegan-but-injectable medication. Hopefully, an oral version of it will be developed- but if it isn't, I hope you're at ease with the treatments you're getting.

Neither of these last two comments seems to address the point of my original article and discussion from a few years ago.

It's not about someone wanting to call themselves vegan or not, it is (to me) about what is more effective in reducing animal suffering which is my goal.

We should not worry about whether to please someone who says "I want to be called a vegan and eat any chocolate" nor she would be so concerned about someone who's made the effort to be fully vegan who is annoyed by someone else calling themselves vegan and eating an egg. What matters is the animal suffering.

If a stricter definition would be best at reducing animal suffering, we should do that.
If a less strict definition would be best at reducing animal suffering (as I believe), we should do that.

I'm not getting that bent out of shape if someone wants to call themselves "vegan" when they're not. There IS one possible harm that could come from that, though: if enough people call themselves "vegan" and still use cheese (for example), it might corrupt the commonly-understood definition of the word, and people who truly want to follow the rules of veganism will have an extra problem- that being: they might specify they are "vegan", but their desire not to be served certain foods would not be understood! They would have to spell out what they want or don't want EVERY. BLESSED. TIME.

And I still don't understand why someone would even want to call themselves "vegan" if they're not up to acting like one.

 

[Graeme M]

The title of this Thread has Always bothered me - Veganism is what it Is! If it is made “less” strict it is No longer Veganism!!
People are “Free” to follow Veganism as strictly as they wish… However, if one is not following it strictly calling oneself Vegan creates confusion

If a stricter definition would be best at reducing animal suffering, we should do that.
If a less strict definition would be best at reducing animal suffering (as I believe), we should do that.

The definition of veganism is pretty clear, as is what is a vegan. I don't think either need to be redefined, because what we have makes sense and works.

However, my own take is that "veganism" is an ethical ideology based on a set of principles. Ethical principles guide us but they are not a straitjacket. People are free to do what they like, within the law, so I am inclined to explain what vegan ethics are, what the goals are, and leave it to people to decide for themselves what to do. If they want to be a vegan, then that is a particular thing. Sure, it's a strict lifestyle but if one is serious about it, then they can choose to live that way. But, no-one has to be a vegan.

So no, we don't need to make veganism itself less strict, because viewed as an ethical framework it already is as strict or loose as you want it to be. If you honestly want to do the best you possible can, then you can call yourself a vegan. If not, you are free to adopt the principles to the extent you want. What might be needed is better communication about this fact. By encouraging people to make use of the principles to the extent they can or want to, we can encourage more people to be open to the idea and make the changes they can.

And frankly I don't care what people call themselves. It doesn't really matter because people will do what they are willing to do. The principles are what they are, the goals are what they are, the practices are what they are.

 

[g0rph]

Another problem with my plan of a less strict definition is you might get vegan restaurants including milk chocolate and pasta made out of eggs, which I think we can agree we definitely don't want. Nowadays you can be pretty sure that a restaurant that calls itself vegan wouldn't do that.

I actually don't think vegan restaurants should be doing that, even if the definition were changed.

That wouldn't fit with my idea that the exceptions should be occasional (foreign holiday, grandparent's house) rather than routine.

So if you change the definition I would propose that a product sold as vegan (including a whole restaurant) must still be fully vegan. This should avoid the restaurant confusion.

So I don't want to change that definition of how a product is defined.

What I'm saying is a person should be able to define themselves as vegan even if they occasionally consume non vegan products (as long as it's a product with a leather tag rather than a leather jacket, an egg in the cake your Mom made at her own birthday party rather than an omelette or deliberately buying a cake you like with an egg all the time in your weekly supermarket shop).

I don't have vegan on my profile because according to the current definition I am possibly not vegan.
I don't eat meat, eggs, dairy, honey etc and check labels. I don't buy leather, wool, silk etc.

However, if I am at a bar, or restaurant, I don't worry about wine or beer being non-vegan. Mainly because there is no reliable way to ascertain that it is or not (barnivore has many false positive and negatives). But there is no mandate that says it should be labelled, probably because almost all beers and wines clearly do not contain animal products, but some may have had them used in the process of making them...(Milk stout is a probable exception).

Also, possibly more against the vegan narrative, I do not want to see the end of "pets".
I am for service dogs and house dogs. And whilst we definitely should adopt first, I do not want to see the end of healthy breeds.

And I am for well-treated house rabbits, rats, guinea pigs etc etc.

In fact I am convinced that the abundance of animals around us in houses and walking the streets is one of the reasons there is veganism in the first place. We can see they have character, feel pain, fear, joy.

Cats I have an issue with. They are non-native predators and are obligate carnivores. And whilst vegan cat food exists, the jury is definitely still out.
Cultured meat can solve their diet, but they all too often are allowed to roam outside and kill small mammals and birds.

I also have no issue with the use of eggs from rescued chickens, or the wool from sanctuary sheep, even if I would abstain myself.

If those actions and beliefs make me non-vegan, so be it.
However, day to day I use the word for myself as everyone knows what it means. I am not going to a restaurant and asking for "100% plant based" options.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

You can be vegan and have pets, of course. I think you can be vegan and give me to cats as well or cook and give meat to humans and still be vegan. Do not sure there is as much conflict between veganism and pets as you make out.

 

[Jamie in Chile]

I'm not getting that bent out of shape if someone wants to call themselves "vegan" when they're not. There IS one possible harm that could come from that, though: if enough people call themselves "vegan" and still use cheese (for example), it might corrupt the commonly-understood definition of the word, and people who truly want to follow the rules of veganism will have an extra problem- that being: they might specify they are "vegan", but their desire not to be served certain foods would not be understood! They would have to spell out what they want or don't want EVERY. BLESSED. TIME.

Yes, that's true, that is a disadvantage of what I'm suggesting. In fact I would argue that my post 92 already effectively made the same point.