Let's Make Veganism Less Strict

[silva]

I see no shame in saying 'mostly vegan', or that they're vegetarian and try and keep vegan, but sometimes make exceptions. That's what I say

 

[g0rph]

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.

The point is, I am not against responsible breeding. Veganism says this is a bad thing. And for sure, puppy mills certainly are.
And it's all very well saying "adopt don't shop", but I don't want to see the end of Border Collies, Labradors, Belgian Malinois, Jack Russell Terriers etc etc. Each breed has known characteristics. Taking in a rescue dog is fine for many, but probably not advisable for a family with small children.
I don't want someone who wants to keep guinea pigs or rats to be no longer allowed to...
Of course, laws need to protect them, but I think having pets is a healthy thing.

 

[Ahimsa24/7]

I adopted (created?) the term "virtual vegan" to describe myself. Do I know with absolute certainty that the popcorn at the movie theater is vegan, or that there isn't a little bit of cheese in the tomato sauce at the restaurant even when they say there isn't? Is there some animal product in the dry wall used to build my house 53 years ago? Do I benevolently imprison my cats in my home against their will? Sort of.

I do the best I can with the information available to me to do what I think is the ethical thing, without driving myself crazy. "If it's stolen from an animal I don't use it" works 99% of the time.

 

[Graeme M]

I adopted (created?) the term "virtual vegan" to describe myself. Do I know with absolute certainty that the popcorn at the movie theater is vegan, or that there isn't a little bit of cheese in the tomato sauce at the restaurant even when they say there isn't? Is there some animal product in the dry wall used to build my house 53 years ago? Do I benevolently imprison my cats in my home against their will? Sort of.

I do the best I can with the information available to me to do what I think is the ethical thing, without driving myself crazy. "If it's stolen from an animal I don't use it" works 99% of the time.

That seems pretty reasonable. The big items are really the obvious items, the rest seem to be more of a sort of diminishing returns thing. I don't use the label at all myself because I am not vegan the way most serious vegans would think about it, so if asked I just say I follow vegan ethics.

 

[allindogecoin]

I do wonder about this topic as well. Something I find interesting is how veganism is considered an "identity group" whereas e.g. if you don't eat humans, you're not called an anti-cannibal, so there is something about labelling and categorizing of groups whose behaviour deviates from social norms.

I am not sure whether it is good or not to redefine veganism so it is less or more strict, but the term "flexitarian" is already commonly used so it may simply be a case of pointing people towards flexitarianism instead of trying to redefine veganism. In terms of social awkwardness, I am aware the ethicist Peter Singer is a "vegan at home" ie he eats vegan at home but when he is out and about then he will accept vegetarianism, which seems to be much less socially awkward, and there seems to be a lot more food options. So rather than redefine veganism, it may be better to point people towards flexitarianism or "vegan at home, vegetarian otherwise."

Regardless, I think removing labels and "identity group" psychology from plant-based eating would help in the same way most people wouldn't eat human meat (hopefully) but don't call themselves anti-cannibals.

 

[g0rph]

I do wonder about this topic as well. Something I find interesting is how veganism is considered an "identity group" whereas e.g. if you don't eat humans, you're not called an anti-cannibal, so there is something about labelling and categorizing of groups whose behaviour deviates from social norms.

I am not sure whether it is good or not to redefine veganism so it is less or more strict, but the term "flexitarian" is already commonly used so it may simply be a case of pointing people towards flexitarianism instead of trying to redefine veganism. In terms of social awkwardness, I am aware the ethicist Peter Singer is a "vegan at home" ie he eats vegan at home but when he is out and about then he will accept vegetarianism, which seems to be much less socially awkward, and there seems to be a lot more food options. So rather than redefine veganism, it may be better to point people towards flexitarianism or "vegan at home, vegetarian otherwise."

Regardless, I think removing labels and "identity group" psychology from plant-based eating would help in the same way most people wouldn't eat human meat (hopefully) but don't call themselves anti-cannibals.

It's an identity group because it goes against group norms.

More people use animal products than not. So those purposefully avoiding them, obviously get labelled.

Same with atheism.
I'm atheist, but nobody is called an asantaclausist or an afairyist.

 

[g0rph]

One of my favourite Youtubers (Derek Sarno) sums it up well...
By all means watch the whole video, but I've started this at a very relevant point...

 

[Jamie in Chile]

"flexitarian" is already commonly used so it may simply be a case of pointing people towards flexitarianism instead of trying to redefine veganism.

Flexitarianism is I would say in between regular meat eating and vegetarian in that you can actually eat meat and probably only relates to food and flexitarians are eating meat many are probably also using foods with dairy and eggs, or even eating dairy and eggs directly, so it's quite far from vegan.

I think the scale goes regular meat eater - flexitarian - vegetarian - - vegan

What interests me (perhaps because that's where I am) is the large gap between
1) the minimum requirements to be vegetarian and
2) the minimum requirements to be vegan

I found myself caught between the two in that I actually broadly agree with the vegan philosophy and certainly wouldn't eat an egg or wear leather. If I define myself as vegetarian and then refuse to accept an omelette for breakfast or reject a gift of leather people are doing to think "why didn't he say vegan then"?

Am I am probably closer to 2) than 1)

But if I define myself as vegan then it's annoying to vegans (and I've falsely defined myself) when I just think "everyone else is having the birthday cake/ice cream, and there's no vegan option available, and I want it".

So, according to the definition I am vegetarian, but in actual fact I think veganism makes more sense as an ethical philosophy. My philosophy is ethical, and vegetarians who eat a lot of eggs or dairy make somewhat less sense if it's an ethical philosophy.

What I settled on was I said "vegetarian and mostly vegan" which is short and easy.

However some people don't get it even after say that and just think I'm vegan or vegetarian, it's like some people feel more comfortable settling on one or the other

Some people said I should say plant-based but I'm not convinced with that as I think plant-based is more about food and I also always refuse to go the zoo for instance

 

[Lou]

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

The way I see it, if someone wants to be vegan, POOF, he is a vegan.

 

[1956]

The way I see it, if someone wants to be vegan, POOF, he is a vegan.

That is Only true if they Eat and Behave as a Vegan!
I don’t have any problem with someone Wanting to be Vegan but not quite being there, however they are not Vegan!
However, if someone is eating eggs and dairy even Occasionally they are Not Vegan!
If it’s a question of that they slipped up or ate something non Vegan accidentally - Yes - I would consider them still Vegan…
Someone like @Jamie in Chile is definitely doing good for both the animals and the environment, but if he calls himself a Vegan and then eats a non Vegan cake or something in public it confuses what being Vegan means.
Having a Vegan mindset and being a Vegan is not the same thing…

 

[g0rph]

The way I see it, if someone wants to be vegan, POOF, he is a vegan.

Lou, Lou.
I wanted to be vegan for years. I agreed with the ideals of veganism.
However, I kept on getting sirloin steak in on Fridays, ate bacon, eggs and sausages at the weekend and make casseroles with lamb and beef.
I was too weak to go against the norms. So I put it on a shelf at the back of my mind and rarely thought about it.
Sure, I tried to buy organic, grass-fed, free-range etc etc but that was, in hindsight, quite irrelevant.

In exactly zero ways was I vegan.

I know a few people who also agree with it and claim they "want to be vegan", but 100% are not.

 

[shyvas]

You can't be a part time vegan. I often hear ''I'm vegan during the week and during weekends, I'm omni''!

If someone is a strict vegetarian and will occasionally eat a slice of cake and ice cream, they are vegetarian but following a plant based diet.

My question is, what's not stopping them from eating that tiny slice of cake?

 

[Jamie in Chile]

I suspect - and this is mostly guesswork - that one thing that's going on is that vegans have put a lot of effort in to become vegan. It's a lot harder to become vegan than vegetarian.

So when I say "I am going to still eat cake, but I want to be part of your club" it's as if as you're proudly sweating at the finish line of the marathon, and I'm standing next to you also getting the medal around my neck, and I happen to mention to you (while not even seeming that tired) that I got a taxi part of the way because I didn't really have time for the training, but that we both finished the marathon and are both equally successful. Or, as if you're standing at the summit of Mount Everest, and I land and get out of my helicopter and go and greet you as a fellow Mount Everest climber and explain I just found the final sections difficult and ask if we can get a photo together. I think that's how it feels, am I right?

It's like "vegan" is a title that's awarded to people that have made the most effort. I don't see it that way. I think you could broaden the definition and still acknowledge those that have made even more effort as being better.

The reason I am eating the cake is because I think doing so has negligible overall impact on animal suffering. When people see me refuse cake, they are going to think vegans are extremist and are less likely to become vegan, leading to more suffering.

However, this isn't the entire argument. I have also occasionally eaten chocolate just because I felt like it, and there was no vegan chocolate in the shop where I was. Even though no-one else was there.

So perhaps what it comes down to is we are all judging ethics vs practicality. The vegans have just gone a bit further down the scale of ethical vs selfish. Even the vegans haven't reached the end point of course. Not many of you are investigating which vegan foods have a bigger impact on animal habitats. Even the Buddhist monk probably secretly got annoyed with an insect once and killed it, or at least walked ahead without sweeping the path in front of them.

I think if you draw the line in a place that makes others want to follow, you can do more good.

It's a line drawing exercise. I.e. a sliding scale not absolute. When you say "why eat the cake" I could just as well say to you "why don't you take more care of the insects when you clean your house" or "why do you still eat rice when it causes much more global warming than other plant foods, and consequently causes animal deaths?".

The definition of veganism is a point on a scale from meat eater to Jain-insect-sweeper, not a fundamental point of enlightenment reached. It's a point on the mountain slope near the top, not the absolute peak.

However, there is a counter point to my claim that the definition of vegan is a point on a scale. It's that the definition of veganism sits at the point where you've eliminated all direct, deliberate harm, and after that there is only a smaller amount of indirect, accidental harm, which is different. However, that line can get a bit fuzzy. To make this argument you would have to argue that eating a packet of biscuits with 1% animal product due to some minor ingredient is direct harm, whereas eating vegetables without checking if their planting and cultivating causes any animals to die (directly from machines or from habitat loss) is more indirect. It's not clear to me whether that is a valid distinction or not. Neither is it clear to me whether the harm per calorie in the first case or more or less than the second case. Ethically, they seem similar situations to me.

 

[g0rph]

I suspect - and this is mostly guesswork - that one thing that's going on is that vegans have put a lot of effort in to become vegan. It's a lot harder to become vegan than vegetarian.

So when I say "I am going to still eat cake, but I want to be part of your club" it's as if as you're proudly sweating at the finish line of the marathon, and I'm standing next to you also getting the medal around my neck, and I happen to mention to you (while not even seeming that tired) that I got a taxi part of the way because I didn't really have time for the training, but that we both finished the marathon and are both equally successful. Or, as if you're standing at the summit of Mount Everest, and I land and get out of my helicopter and go and greet you as a fellow Mount Everest climber and explain I just found the final sections difficult and ask if we can get a photo together. I think that's how it feels, am I right?

It's like "vegan" is a title that's awarded to people that have made the most effort. I don't see it that way. I think you could broaden the definition and still acknowledge those that have made even more effort as being better.

The reason I am eating the cake is because I think doing so has negligible overall impact on animal suffering. When people see me refuse cake, they are going to think vegans are extremist and are less likely to become vegan, leading to more suffering.

However, this isn't the entire argument. I have also occasionally eaten chocolate just because I felt like it, and there was no vegan chocolate in the shop where I was. Even though no-one else was there.

So perhaps what it comes down to is we are all judging ethics vs practicality. The vegans have just gone a bit further down the scale of ethical vs selfish. Even the vegans haven't reached the end point of course. Not many of you are investigating which vegan foods have a bigger impact on animal habitats. Even the Buddhist monk probably secretly got annoyed with an insect once and killed it, or at least walked ahead without sweeping the path in front of them.

I think if you draw the line in a place that makes others want to follow, you can do more good.

It's a line drawing exercise. I.e. a sliding scale not absolute. When you say "why eat the cake" I could just as well say to you "why don't you take more care of the insects when you clean your house" or "why do you still eat rice when it causes much more global warming than other plant foods, and consequently causes animal deaths?".

The definition of veganism is a point on a scale from meat eater to Jain-insect-sweeper, not a fundamental point of enlightenment reached. It's a point on the mountain slope near the top, not the absolute peak.

However, there is a counter point to my claim that the definition of vegan is a point on a scale. It's that the definition of veganism sits at the point where you've eliminated all direct, deliberate harm, and after that there is only a smaller amount of indirect, accidental harm, which is different. However, that line can get a bit fuzzy. To make this argument you would have to argue that eating a packet of biscuits with 1% animal product due to some minor ingredient is direct harm, whereas eating vegetables without checking if their planting and cultivating causes any animals to die (directly from machines or from habitat loss) is more indirect. It's not clear to me whether that is a valid distinction or not. Neither is it clear to me whether the harm per calorie in the first case or more or less than the second case. Ethically, they seem similar situations to me.

One point, whilst many Jains adopt veganism, Jainism does allow for dairy...So as a religion it's lacto-vegetarian dietary speaking

 

[Lou]

The way I see it, if someone wants to be vegan, POOF, he is a vegan.

if you look at the vegan's society definition. its really all about intent.

 

[PTree15]

if you look at the vegan's society definition. its really all about intent.

I disagree that intending or wanting to be a vegan makes one a vegan. To me, there is at least a baseline (taking into consideration the possible and practicable clause) of behavior to call oneself a vegan. If a person who wants to be a vegan eats steak every week or eggs every other day or the non-vegan cake at a birthday party, that person is not a vegan. That person can want to be a vegan all they want, but at the very least, a vegan doesn't consume dead flesh, dairy or eggs. I've used the example of my friend, who is vegetarian and calls himself a wannabe vegan because he hasn't been able to kick his cheese habit. Even he recognizes that he shouldn't call himself a vegan. I think this just confuses the heck out of people who already have issues with veganism.

Also, I'm not trying to "exclude people from the club." That representation has always bothered me. I don't consider being vegan being in a club. I consider it a compassionate move to avoid harming animals. Now, I of course applaud anyone's effort to reduce their consumption of animal flesh/products. Every little bit helps the idea of veganism move forward and become more accepted, in my humble opinion.

I think the definition from the Vegan Society purposely isn't ironclad because even if vegans avoid animal products, products tested on animals and the like, perfection is impossible. Humans have an impact on many other species just by existing, by the way humans live. But we can reduce some harm by not consuming dead flesh, dairy and eggs.

 

[g0rph]

if you look at the vegan's society definition. its really all about intent.

I'm pretty sure that isn't all it is.
So have I been vegan for like 30+ years?
I really wanted to stop eating steak and bacon, but every day kept failing.
I really believed in the cause, but couldn't quite manage it.
I really "wanted" to be vegan.
But I certainly wasn't.

Actions are what counts, not nice thoughts.

 

[allindogecoin]

Flexitarianism is I would say in between regular meat eating and vegetarian in that you can actually eat meat and probably only relates to food and flexitarians are eating meat many are probably also using foods with dairy and eggs, or even eating dairy and eggs directly, so it's quite far from vegan.

I think the scale goes regular meat eater - flexitarian - vegetarian - - vegan

What interests me (perhaps because that's where I am) is the large gap between
1) the minimum requirements to be vegetarian and
2) the minimum requirements to be vegan

I found myself caught between the two in that I actually broadly agree with the vegan philosophy and certainly wouldn't eat an egg or wear leather. If I define myself as vegetarian and then refuse to accept an omelette for breakfast or reject a gift of leather people are doing to think "why didn't he say vegan then"?

Am I am probably closer to 2) than 1)

But if I define myself as vegan then it's annoying to vegans (and I've falsely defined myself) when I just think "everyone else is having the birthday cake/ice cream, and there's no vegan option available, and I want it".

So, according to the definition I am vegetarian, but in actual fact I think veganism makes more sense as an ethical philosophy. My philosophy is ethical, and vegetarians who eat a lot of eggs or dairy make somewhat less sense if it's an ethical philosophy.

What I settled on was I said "vegetarian and mostly vegan" which is short and easy.

However some people don't get it even after say that and just think I'm vegan or vegetarian, it's like some people feel more comfortable settling on one or the other

Some people said I should say plant-based but I'm not convinced with that as I think plant-based is more about food and I also always refuse to go the zoo for instance

I see your point as I face these challenges myself.

I think what is important is your intentions and effort in reducing harm rather than how you label yourself or how others label you.

 

[allindogecoin]

I'm pretty sure that isn't all it is.
So have I been vegan for like 30+ years?
I really wanted to stop eating steak and bacon, but every day kept failing.
I really believed in the cause, but couldn't quite manage it.
I really "wanted" to be vegan.
But I certainly wasn't.

Actions are what counts, not nice thoughts.

Someone who wants to stop eating steak and bacon but fails every day may have nice thoughts, but I question whether there is much effort or intent behind the thoughts.

 

[g0rph]

Someone who wants to stop eating steak and bacon but fails every day may have nice thoughts, but I question whether there is much effort or intent behind the thoughts.

In my case, I knew veganism was the ethical choice, but didn't have the mental strength to go against the grain. That changed 4 years ago, when I pretty much took a couple of weeks to stop