Veganishm

[flyingsnail]

And it's not as if I'm the only vegan who thinks this way:

The fact that there are other people that may think doesn't address anything.....and I have trouble taking career vegans like Jack and Matt seriously. If they were really committed to animal welfare rather than veganism its hard to understand why they would have spent half their lives promoting veganism rather than animal welfare. Now if the idea here is that veganism is the best way to promote animal welfare, well, I'd love to see their argument for that.

I think its pretty clear that, regardless of what Matt thinks, his actions are restricted by the whims of the vegan community....same goes with any career vegan.

 

[Andy_T]

Yesterday Gary Francione published a new article on a similar subject:
Veganism, PETA, "Personal Purity," and Principles of Justice - Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach

Best regards,
Andy

 

[Second Summer]

Someone that is vegan except for the use of some eggs from their pet hens would result in no more harm.

Where would those hens come from? What about the roosters / male chickens? Is this a lifestyle that can be recommended to everyone (or at least most people), like in Kant's categorical imperative?

The fact that there are other people that may think doesn't address anything.....and I have trouble taking career vegans like Jack and Matt seriously. If they were really committed to animal welfare rather than veganism its hard to understand why they would have spent half their lives promoting veganism rather than animal welfare.

"Career vegans"! Yes, I guess we shouldn't bother try organise efforts to end consumption of animal products, and care neither about our own nor anyone else's nutrition, which has been Jack Norris' focus for a number of years. Clearly a total waste of time and effort, doesn't contribute to animal welfare at all ...

 

[FortyTwo]

"Career vegans"! Yes, I guess we shouldn't bother try organise efforts to end consumption of animal products, and care neither about our own nor anyone else's nutrition, which has been Jack Norris' focus for a number of years. Clearly a total waste of time and effort, doesn't contribute to animal welfare at all ...

Clearly those people are wasting their time and should be debating about alternate word definitions on the internet if they want to make a real difference, and maybe eat scallops.

 

[prioritarian]

Full-blown veganism.....as opposed to what? I've asked this a number of times, but if someone can deviate from veganism and still be vegan how exactly does that work? Is everyone vegan in that cases or is there some limit to the amount you can deviate? What is the limit and how do you measure it?

This is only an issue for you because you refuse to accept that many vegans believe veganism can be relative (consequentialist/utilitarian) or imperfect (kantian/abolitionist).

The "Singer clause" was never inserted into the UK Vegan society's definition, "possible and practicable" has little to do with Singer.

It was debated at an annual general meeting (and, to my knowledge, appeared for the first time in the 1979 MOA). And while I was not there, I was told by people who were, that Singer's "Animal Liberation" inspired support for this qualification. I can't document the exact time-line because the direct links at the UK Vegan Society are now dead but wiki has a summary and Candid Hominid has a lengthy blog post that describes the changing definition :

A History of Veganism

 

[Tom L.]

I'm not sure what sort of "quantitative data" you're looking for......but I doubt anybody has rigorously calculated the number of insects that die when pesticides, etc are used on crops.

They probably haven't. But yes, that was what I had in mind.

Also I think the burden of proof is on vegans, that is, vegans need to show that more harm is inflicted when producing honey, silk, etc than when growing crops if they want people to take their position seriously. But in the case of honey, I think its pretty clear that less harm is inflicted in most plant crops. Why? Because, for example, not only are bees used to pollinate fruit and nut crops trucked around for long distances (which kills a decent percent of them) but the entire colonies will often be killed after the growing seasoning. The article I posted earlier discusses this practice. Also using bees to pollinate is a direct use of insects and I'm not sure how killing a massive amount of insects with a pesticide is some how more friendly to insects than using bees to produce honey.

But here's the thing: I don't see that the use of bees directly would be an alternative to killing insects on crops: we would have to eat vegetables/fruits anyway, whether or not we used bees for pollination or honey. Grains and some other foods are not pollinated by insects, so if a vegan wished to, they could grow their own insect-pollinated foods and become independent of using bees, even if they were not free of commercial agriculture completely. (I don't know how many vegans do that). As for silk, I thought all vegans rejected that.

(I may be wrong, but I thought hives were moved after dark, when bees had returned from foraging. I knew that old queens are sometimes killed and replaced by beekeepers, but didn't know that whole colonies were sometimes done away with.)

Quite a few vegans do not believe in using honey; as I understand it, commercial use of bees for pollination, as well as the killing of insect pests, falls into the category of unavoidable harm.

 

[prioritarian]

They probably haven't. But yes, that was what I had in mind.

But here's the thing: I don't see that the use of bees directly would be an alternative to killing insects on crops: we would have to eat vegetables/fruits anyway, whether or not we used bees for pollination or honey. Grains and some other foods are not pollinated by insects, so if a vegan wished to, they could grow their own insect-pollinated foods and become independent of using bees, even if they were not free of commercial agriculture completely. (I don't know how many vegans do that). As for silk, I thought all vegans rejected that.

(I may be wrong, but I thought hives were moved after dark, when bees had returned from foraging. I knew that old queens are sometimes killed and replaced by beekeepers, but didn't know that whole colonies were sometimes done away with.)

Quite a few vegans do not believe in using honey; as I understand it, commercial use of bees for pollination, as well as the killing of insect pests, falls into the category of unavoidable harm.

It's quite feasible to avoid foods that are pollinated by commercial apiaries (many agricultural crops self-pollinate).

I don't consider insects to be sentient so I really don't spend much time thinking about shellac, honey, or silk. Since I don't particularly want to use honey or silk, shellac is the "direct" insect product that I use the most. Shellac is relatively easy to avoid but few vegans pay much attention to Lac beetle farming.

:shrugs:

 

[flyingsnail]

But here's the thing: I don't see that the use of bees directly would be an alternative to killing insects on crops: we would have to eat vegetables/fruits anyway, whether or not we used bees for pollination or honey. Grains and some other foods are not pollinated by insects, so if a vegan wished to, they could grow their own insect-pollinated foods and become independent of using bees, even if they were not free of commercial agriculture completely.

We don't need to consume the fruits and nuts that require harvested bee colonies for pollination....so why are these crops vegan while honey is not? But its not just about bees, my point here is that the production of any agricultural crop requires the exploitation and killing of insects so why would you pick out a few cases to avoid while systematically ignoring all the others?

Quite a few vegans do not believe in using honey; as I understand it, commercial use of bees for pollination, as well as the killing of insect pests, falls into the category of unavoidable harm.

Some insect harm is unavoidable while others can be avoided, as mentioned above, vegans could easily avoid the fruits and nuts that require harvested bees for pollination but they currently do not. These fruits and nuts are by no means unavoidable. But my argument here is that in terms of insect exploitation and harm, its not clear how honey, silk, etc is any worse than common (plant) agricultural products....so why single them out?

 

[flyingsnail]

Where would those hens come from? What about the roosters / male chickens? Is this a lifestyle that can be recommended to everyone (or at least most people), like in Kant's categorical imperative?

The hens could come from variety of places, for example, adopt some rescue hens. I don't think whether or not a lifestyle can be recommended to everyone is important, after all, one's living situation can vary dramatically from person to person.

"Career vegans"! Yes, I guess we shouldn't bother try organise efforts to end consumption of animal products, and care neither about our own nor anyone else's nutrition, which has been Jack Norris' focus for a number of years. Clearly a total waste of time and effort, doesn't contribute to animal welfare at all ...

I never suggested one shouldn't organize efforts, instead I implied that career vegans (e.g., people that derive their income of veganism) may have trouble looking at matters objectively. That is, they have a conflict of interest.

 

[flyingsnail]

This is only an issue for you because you refuse to accept that many vegans believe veganism can be relative (consequentialist/utilitarian) or imperfect (kantian/abolitionist).

What is only an issue for me? I just asked questions which you are, as usual, not answering. You keep trying to make this about what "many vegans believe", but that isn't what I'm discussing, I've been discussing the nature of veganism.

It was debated at an annual general meeting (and, to my knowledge, appeared for the first time in the 1979 MOA). And while I was not there, I was told by people who were, that Singer's "Animal Liberation" inspired support for this qualification. I can't document the exact time-line because the direct links at the UK Vegan Society are now dead but wiki has a summary and Candid Hominid has a lengthy blog post that describes the changing definition :

The Vegan Society may have been influenced by Singer, I wouldn't know, but nothing they currently say has much relation to Singer. Where is the Singer clause in their definition? "Possible and practicable" has little to do with Singer and I'm not sure what else you'd think would be a "Singer clause".

 

[Tom L.]

We don't need to consume the fruits and nuts that require harvested bee colonies for pollination....so why are these crops vegan while honey is not? But its not just about bees, my point here is that the production of any agricultural crop requires the exploitation and killing of insects so why would you pick out a few cases to avoid while systematically ignoring all the others?

Some insect harm is unavoidable while others can be avoided, as mentioned above, vegans could easily avoid the fruits and nuts that require harvested bees for pollination but they currently do not. These fruits and nuts are by no means unavoidable. But my argument here is that in terms of insect exploitation and harm, its not clear how honey, silk, etc is any worse than common (plant) agricultural products....so why single them out?

(bold emphasis mine) If insect-pollinated crops are not as unavoidable as I have thought... then I honestly don't know why they are considered vegan, whereas honey, etc are not.

 

[prioritarian]

(bold emphasis mine) If insect-pollinated crops are not as unavoidable as I have thought... then I honestly don't know why they are considered vegan, whereas honey, etc are not.

Welcome to the slippery slope of relative veganism!

 

[prioritarian]

What is only an issue for me? I just asked questions which you are, as usual, not answering. You keep trying to make this about what "many vegans believe", but that isn't what I'm discussing, I've been discussing the nature of veganism.

IMO, the UK vegan society definition is intentionally imprecise because there are multiple ethical and non-ethical motivations for veganism. To use an analogy: I would hope we all agree that socialism exists but there really is no such thing as a precise definition of socialism.

The Vegan Society may have been influenced by Singer, I wouldn't know, but nothing they currently say has much relation to Singer. Where is the Singer clause in their definition? "Possible and practicable" has little to do with Singer and I'm not sure what else you'd think would be a "Singer clause".

Sheesh...my use of "Singer clause" was a bit of a jest. My non-humorous point was that much of the support for this clause came from utilitarian vegans; but it also works from a kantian perspective. See above.

 

[prioritarian]

I never suggested one shouldn't organize efforts, instead I implied that career vegans (e.g., people that derive their income of veganism) may have trouble looking at matters objectively. That is, they have a conflict of interest.

I don't think Matt "I'd eat a burger" Ball or Jack "try Oysters" Norris are in it for the "vegan money". So what conflict of interest are you talking about?

 

[flyingsnail]

IMO, the UK vegan society definition is intentionally imprecise because there are multiple ethical and non-ethical motivations for veganism. To use an analogy: I would hope we all agree that socialism exists but there really is no such thing as a precise definition of socialism.

Is it really intentionally imprecise? I'm not so sure about that but even if we ignore the lack of philosophic rigor, it still doesn't make much sense. I'm not sure I understand your analogy, socialism represents a class of political philosophies and has a clear definition. The same can't be said of veganism, instead veganism is a lifestyle doctrine that people come to for a variety of reasons.

Sheesh...my use of "Singer clause" was a bit of a jest. My non-humorous point was that much of the support for this clause came from utilitarian vegans; but it also works from a kantian perspective. See above.

Sure....but I still don't see what is utilitarian about their definition. Can you explain how "possible and practicable" (assuming this is what you'r referring to) is utilitarian?

I don't think Matt "I'd eat a burger" Ball or Jack "try Oysters" Norris are in it for the "vegan money". So what conflict of interest are you talking about?

I didn't say nothing about their motivation, rather I noted that both derive their incomes from veganism and as a result have conflicts of interests. Despite meaning well, people tend to change their behavior when their financial interests are involved. This phenomena is well noted and why people are encouraged to note any potential conflicts of interest. For example, if a dietitian's income was primarily derived from the dairy industry wouldn't you say there was a conflict of interest? I think so....why couldn't you say the same thing about career vegans?

 

[prioritarian]

Is it really intentionally imprecise? I'm not so sure about that but even if we ignore the lack of philosophic rigor, it still doesn't make much sense. I'm not sure I understand your analogy, socialism represents a class of political philosophies and has a clear definition. The same can't be said of veganism, instead veganism is a lifestyle doctrine that people come to for a variety of reasons.

Sure....but I still don't see what is utilitarian about their definition. Can you explain how "possible and practicable" (assuming this is what you'r referring to) is utilitarian?

I interpret "possible and practicable" as consequential relativism.

As for my analogy, an anarcho-syndicalist has very little in common with collectivist. Likewise, in veganism there is a lack of consensus about the means to a more vegan world. IMO, veganism is simply a catch-all term that is useful to describe those who - to some degree - avoid animal exploitation by limiting use of animals. And as I stated before, I like the term "veganish" because it denotes a utilitarian interpretation of veganism (e.g. "ish" is not possible in deontic veganism). I think you have some sympathies for consequentialist ethical arguments, flyingsnail. Would you be OK with calling yourself veganish?

 

[flyingsnail]

I interpret "possible and practicable" as consequential relativism.

I'm not sure why and, even so, not sure why you would suggest it was utilitarian in nature.

As for my analogy, an anarcho-syndicalist has very little in common with collectivist. Likewise, in veganism there is a lack of consensus about the means to a more vegan world. IMO, veganism is simply a catch-all term that is useful to describe those who - to some degree - avoid animal exploitation by limiting use of animals.

Collectivism is not a particular political philosophy, but socialism is a broad class of political theories so you're naturally going to see differences between the various forms of socialism. Not sure how that is in anyway similar to veganism, veganism doesn't represent a broad class of views on animal welfare and/or rights but instead represents a lifestyle doctrine. To some degree? What does that mean? While vegans do disagree a bit on things like trace ingredients I've yet to hear anybody suggest that someone that, for example, eats a vegan diet except meat once a week is vegan. So, in practice, "to some degree" seems to be rather narrow. Maybe such a person would be "veganish"?

I think you have some sympathies for consequentialist ethical arguments, flyingsnail. Would you be OK with calling yourself veganish?

Not really because I don't see veganism as something to strive for and using the word in this matter implies, I think, that it is such. But I really don't really care what I get called, yet having a general movement (with supportive language) for animal welfare is important if it is going to be promoted. I think Veganism has become far too rooted in consumerism to be effective as an animal rights/welfare movement, while you seem to relish in the economic utility of veganism I see it as a distraction from the real issues. In fact, go to any big vegan event and its primarily about selling products and services.

I asked you this earlier, but what does calling yourself vegan or veganish achieve? How does being vegan, or associating with veganism, enrich your view of matters?

 

[prioritarian]

I asked you this earlier, but what does calling yourself vegan or veganish achieve? How does being vegan, or associating with veganism, enrich your view of matters?

I use vegan because it's convenient (e.g. when eating out) and it fits. Nevertheless, I'm certainly not wedded to it. In fact, I prefer more inclusive labels.

Not sure how that is in anyway similar to veganism, veganism doesn't represent a broad class of views on animal welfare and/or rights but instead represents a lifestyle doctrine.

It's a lifestyle doctrine for some vegans. For others it (also) represents a broad class of views on animal welfare/rights.

Maybe such a person would be "veganish"?

I doubt you will find anyone who eats meat once a week who has any interest in identifying with "veganism".

Veganism has become far too rooted in consumerism to be effective as an animal rights/welfare movement.

I agree with you to some extent but even if AR/AW groups were to pick another label I think it would just be a matter time before it becomes equally rooted in consumerism.

 

[flyingsnail]

I use vegan because it's convenient (e.g. when eating out) and it fits. Nevertheless, I'm certainly not wedded to it. In fact, I prefer more inclusive labels.

Convenient in what sense? How does an association with veganism make eating out more convenient? The only way I find food identified as vegan useful is it tells me what to avoid.......for whatever reason I find most commercial vegan food terrible.

I doubt you will find anyone who eats meat once a week who has any interest in identifying with "veganism".

Why do you doubt that? But this wasn't my point, my point was that even in the people that think veganism should be a bit more inclusive still have something very narrow in mind. Yet, in terms of animal welfare, the lifestyle of someone that eats meat once a week could reduce animal suffering more than vegan depending on the details.

I agree with you to some extent but even if AR/AW groups were to pick another label I think it would just be a matter time before it becomes equally rooted in consumerism.

I don't agree because its not just about picking a new "label", its about changing the character of the movement. Many animal rights/welfare groups have allowed themselves to became hijacked by veganism and this has changed the character of their movement, namely, it has turned it into a commercial movement. But if animal rights/welfare groups focused solely on ethical principles, rather than adherence and promotion of a dogma, there would be little for consumerism to latch onto. Today veganism is largely a commercial movement promoted by career vegans, as mentioned, vegan events today are largely about promoting a variety of vegan products and services rather than any serious animal rights/welfare issues.

 

[prioritarian]

Convenient in what sense? How does an association with veganism make eating out more convenient? The only way I find food identified as vegan useful is it tells me what to avoid.......for whatever reason I find most commercial vegan food terrible.

Convenient in that the word "vegan" is widely understood and reflects my lifestyle even if I don't agree with all veg*ns about everything.

I don't agree because its not just about picking a new "label", its about changing the character of the movement...But if animal rights/welfare groups focused solely on ethical principles, rather than adherence and promotion of a dogma, there would be little for consumerism to latch onto. Today veganism is largely a commercial movement promoted by career vegans, as mentioned, vegan events today are largely about promoting a variety of vegan products and services rather than any serious animal rights/welfare issues.

It's my experience that vegans are, in aggregate, less consumerist than the average population. Moreover, your depiction of veg*n events as being largely about consumerism also does not fit my personal experience.

I also believe the negative impact of dogmatic veganism is unfortunate but not a major issue. It's hard not to look at the tremendous progress in animal welfare over the past 5 years or so and not be hopeful!