- Joined
- Jan 3, 2016
- Reaction score
- 1,852
- Age
- 44
- Lifestyle
- Vegetarian
1,500 words long. 5-10 minutes to read.
Two Philosophies
I think some arguments within the vegan/vegetarian community come down to a difference of fundamental philosophy. Appreciating this might avoid frustration.
Deontology is a philosophy that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action. This tends to conflict with utilitarianism (a version of consequentialism) which is about the most overall harm. If by killing one innocent person you could save multiple innocent people, deontology says no, but utilitarianism says yes. Who is right is purely subjective and may come down to instinct rather than reason, or be beyond the intellect of most/all humans to resolve.
Veganism is more deontological
I guess most vegans are deontological, but some are utilitarian. You could even argue that veganism is deontological by definition.
What would you eat IF (it’s probably not true) I provided very strong evidence to you that eating rice would cause more harm than eating cheese from a family farm? Utilitarians eat the cheese. Deontological vegans still feel that cheese is just wrong and would likely eat the rice because there are things powerfully morally objectionable about the production of cheese. Or even, for a minority, because they define their veganism dogmatically and don’t want to lose the label of being a vegan.
Can you even be a utilitarian vegan?
Thinking of the above example, utilitarian vegans are perhaps not strictly speaking vegans at all (at least not according to some deontological vegans) and may in practice be vegetarians or flexitarians or something else. There may be too much of a conflict between utilitarianism and veganism for both to exist. However, if the terms utilitarianism and veganism are interpreted as broad guidelines rather than strict doctrines, then you can indeed be both since the conflict between them is not that large.
Is purity or showing flexibility better or worse at influencing others?
A utilitarian might choose to eat bread in a restaurant with friends without asking the waiter if the bread is vegan to avoid making veganism look hard, therefore leading to more animal suffering as one of those friends then decide not to go vegan.
If being 99% vegan is more likely to inspire another person to go 99% vegan, then a greater amount of animal suffering will be avoided than if you go 100% vegan. This argument may or may not be true, but a deontological vegan just doesn’t want this argument to be true. Even it were PROVED true that occasionally eating a factory farmed egg would lead to less suffering in the long run due to better influencing of others, a deontological vegan would still not do it, or if they did they would be very uncomfortable about it.
However there is a counterpoint here: showing that you eat NO animal product at all shows that you take this more seriously and could have a more positive influencing effect as a result. Eating cake made with egg may make you look inconsistent and could make your moral system unattractive since it doesn’t look like a consistent system at all. Deontological vegans are probably nodding here upon reading this, but only because it supports your pre-existing instinct. Not because anyone has ever done any survey that would prove one way or the other who is the better influencer.
Quantifying suffering
Deontological vegans are concerned with whether there is ANY animal suffering at all, and not AS concerned with the amount of suffering. For example they may refuse to eat something with a tiny trace of animal product – even though the difference in animal suffering is tiny and they could reduce animal suffering more by being more careful about selecting plant foods or reducing their carbon footprint.
Vegan deontology is qualitative, whereas the utilitarian approach is sometimes quite quantitative. The utilitarian vegan is far more concerned about factory farmed chickens than animal testing for a toothpaste because the former causes say 1000 times more suffering. A deontological vegan doesn’t see or want to accept that the animal testing to make a toothpaste is far less important, and may be uncomfortable with quantifying things. They are more likely to see both as important issues. A deontological vegan will think, perhaps instinctively, that suffering can’t or shouldn’t be quantified or at least that there is something cold and unpleasant about it.
Veganism vs other issues
Being careful about which shampoo you buy, but taking several long haul flights a year, is perhaps inconsistent if the latter causes much more hurt than the former. The deontological vegan is in danger of spending too large an amount of time becoming ethically perfect in one area and neglecting others. Although, conversely, having simple dogmatic rules gets the deontological vegan the right result most of the time and the simplicity of “no animal product” may make it easier to make a decision on a complex issue and free up more time for other issues.
The utilitarian vegan doesn’t see the point in having excessively strict standards with regard to one area, even though in other areas (zero waste, carbon emissions, human issues) your impact might be much higher, and so is more focused on being an ethical person in general rather than being defined by a vegan philosophy.
However, the deontological vegan is able to point to a good argument by comparing to human examples – for example what if someone who regularly groped women in nightclubs proposed that it is more important that they reduce this activity by 99% and the last 1% obviously doesn’t matter. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong, and this (possibly) exposes the utilitarian vegans as being a bit speciesist.
“Utilitarian veganism” can just be an excuse for lower standards
Deontological vegans are more consistent.
Utilitarian vegans/vegetarians, in practice, do not always have as high ethical standards. They tend to do things like eat the occasional piece of milk chocolate. While their logical, quantifying approach does tend to clarify to them more easily than deontological vegans that this is clearly a much lesser evil, that doesn’t actually justify it (not even within a utilitarian framework). So utilitarian veganism is associated with lower ethical standards with regards to animal product.
The utilitarian who avoids asking about vegan bread in the restaurant may actually just be trying to avoid awkwardness for their own sake, even if they justify it another way.
Utilitarian “veganism” has slippage risks also. If you permit yourself milk chocolate once, why not again? If you accept a cheese sandwich from your gran so as not to offend her, she may make it for you again next time. Perhaps one day you end up making a cheese sandwich yourself when no-one else is around.
The vegan community
I suspect deontological vegans tend to participate more actively in vegan communities both online and in person and fit in more easily. I suspect some utilitarian/flexible/less strict vegans just suppress some aspects of their true views to fit in. Utilitarian vegans are also appalled by factory farming and don’t feel like they fit into mainstream (non-vegan) culture, but don’t all fully feel like they fit in to vegan communities either.
The very aggressive and annoying vegans (in activism and online) ,especially ones that do things like angrily say someone is not a vegan if they eat honey, are probably mostly deontological vegans. However, some of the very quiet vegans, that don’t even like to explain their reasons for veganism when asked, can also be quite deontological.
The way newbie or transitioning or less confident deontological vegans ask “is x vegan? Can I eat it?” like they’re asking for permission is reminiscent of the way Christians ask their priest/pastor what to do in a given situation. Utilitarians figure it out for themselves: maybe even if that means bending the rules.
Wrong actions vs appropriate emotion
A deontological vegan judges a person’s morality based on whether they do actions that are “wrong” rather than the total amount of harm that they cause.
Who do you think is the better person?
Deontological vegans are much more accepting of a fellow vegan that ate cheese five times but felt remorse about it than someone who ate cheese once and felt no regret.
Reason vs emotion
The morality of utilitarianism is driven more by analytical but sometimes cold reasoning whereas the morality of deontological vegans is driven more by emotional, instinctive responses (love, compassion).
Conclusion
I can’t see any way to fundamentally determine that one philosophy is better than the other – I think we should respect both philosophies and try to get along. If we can understand that the opposing viewpoint is based on a fairly valid but different system of ethical values, this can help with mutual respect.
It may be pointless trying to argue with a person using lots of facts and arguments if what is really causing different opinions is a hard to resolve difference in a core system of ethical values.
Two Philosophies
I think some arguments within the vegan/vegetarian community come down to a difference of fundamental philosophy. Appreciating this might avoid frustration.
Deontology is a philosophy that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action. This tends to conflict with utilitarianism (a version of consequentialism) which is about the most overall harm. If by killing one innocent person you could save multiple innocent people, deontology says no, but utilitarianism says yes. Who is right is purely subjective and may come down to instinct rather than reason, or be beyond the intellect of most/all humans to resolve.
Veganism is more deontological
I guess most vegans are deontological, but some are utilitarian. You could even argue that veganism is deontological by definition.
What would you eat IF (it’s probably not true) I provided very strong evidence to you that eating rice would cause more harm than eating cheese from a family farm? Utilitarians eat the cheese. Deontological vegans still feel that cheese is just wrong and would likely eat the rice because there are things powerfully morally objectionable about the production of cheese. Or even, for a minority, because they define their veganism dogmatically and don’t want to lose the label of being a vegan.
Can you even be a utilitarian vegan?
Thinking of the above example, utilitarian vegans are perhaps not strictly speaking vegans at all (at least not according to some deontological vegans) and may in practice be vegetarians or flexitarians or something else. There may be too much of a conflict between utilitarianism and veganism for both to exist. However, if the terms utilitarianism and veganism are interpreted as broad guidelines rather than strict doctrines, then you can indeed be both since the conflict between them is not that large.
Is purity or showing flexibility better or worse at influencing others?
A utilitarian might choose to eat bread in a restaurant with friends without asking the waiter if the bread is vegan to avoid making veganism look hard, therefore leading to more animal suffering as one of those friends then decide not to go vegan.
If being 99% vegan is more likely to inspire another person to go 99% vegan, then a greater amount of animal suffering will be avoided than if you go 100% vegan. This argument may or may not be true, but a deontological vegan just doesn’t want this argument to be true. Even it were PROVED true that occasionally eating a factory farmed egg would lead to less suffering in the long run due to better influencing of others, a deontological vegan would still not do it, or if they did they would be very uncomfortable about it.
However there is a counterpoint here: showing that you eat NO animal product at all shows that you take this more seriously and could have a more positive influencing effect as a result. Eating cake made with egg may make you look inconsistent and could make your moral system unattractive since it doesn’t look like a consistent system at all. Deontological vegans are probably nodding here upon reading this, but only because it supports your pre-existing instinct. Not because anyone has ever done any survey that would prove one way or the other who is the better influencer.
Quantifying suffering
Deontological vegans are concerned with whether there is ANY animal suffering at all, and not AS concerned with the amount of suffering. For example they may refuse to eat something with a tiny trace of animal product – even though the difference in animal suffering is tiny and they could reduce animal suffering more by being more careful about selecting plant foods or reducing their carbon footprint.
Vegan deontology is qualitative, whereas the utilitarian approach is sometimes quite quantitative. The utilitarian vegan is far more concerned about factory farmed chickens than animal testing for a toothpaste because the former causes say 1000 times more suffering. A deontological vegan doesn’t see or want to accept that the animal testing to make a toothpaste is far less important, and may be uncomfortable with quantifying things. They are more likely to see both as important issues. A deontological vegan will think, perhaps instinctively, that suffering can’t or shouldn’t be quantified or at least that there is something cold and unpleasant about it.
Veganism vs other issues
Being careful about which shampoo you buy, but taking several long haul flights a year, is perhaps inconsistent if the latter causes much more hurt than the former. The deontological vegan is in danger of spending too large an amount of time becoming ethically perfect in one area and neglecting others. Although, conversely, having simple dogmatic rules gets the deontological vegan the right result most of the time and the simplicity of “no animal product” may make it easier to make a decision on a complex issue and free up more time for other issues.
The utilitarian vegan doesn’t see the point in having excessively strict standards with regard to one area, even though in other areas (zero waste, carbon emissions, human issues) your impact might be much higher, and so is more focused on being an ethical person in general rather than being defined by a vegan philosophy.
However, the deontological vegan is able to point to a good argument by comparing to human examples – for example what if someone who regularly groped women in nightclubs proposed that it is more important that they reduce this activity by 99% and the last 1% obviously doesn’t matter. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong, and this (possibly) exposes the utilitarian vegans as being a bit speciesist.
“Utilitarian veganism” can just be an excuse for lower standards
Deontological vegans are more consistent.
Utilitarian vegans/vegetarians, in practice, do not always have as high ethical standards. They tend to do things like eat the occasional piece of milk chocolate. While their logical, quantifying approach does tend to clarify to them more easily than deontological vegans that this is clearly a much lesser evil, that doesn’t actually justify it (not even within a utilitarian framework). So utilitarian veganism is associated with lower ethical standards with regards to animal product.
The utilitarian who avoids asking about vegan bread in the restaurant may actually just be trying to avoid awkwardness for their own sake, even if they justify it another way.
Utilitarian “veganism” has slippage risks also. If you permit yourself milk chocolate once, why not again? If you accept a cheese sandwich from your gran so as not to offend her, she may make it for you again next time. Perhaps one day you end up making a cheese sandwich yourself when no-one else is around.
The vegan community
I suspect deontological vegans tend to participate more actively in vegan communities both online and in person and fit in more easily. I suspect some utilitarian/flexible/less strict vegans just suppress some aspects of their true views to fit in. Utilitarian vegans are also appalled by factory farming and don’t feel like they fit into mainstream (non-vegan) culture, but don’t all fully feel like they fit in to vegan communities either.
The very aggressive and annoying vegans (in activism and online) ,especially ones that do things like angrily say someone is not a vegan if they eat honey, are probably mostly deontological vegans. However, some of the very quiet vegans, that don’t even like to explain their reasons for veganism when asked, can also be quite deontological.
The way newbie or transitioning or less confident deontological vegans ask “is x vegan? Can I eat it?” like they’re asking for permission is reminiscent of the way Christians ask their priest/pastor what to do in a given situation. Utilitarians figure it out for themselves: maybe even if that means bending the rules.
Wrong actions vs appropriate emotion
A deontological vegan judges a person’s morality based on whether they do actions that are “wrong” rather than the total amount of harm that they cause.
Who do you think is the better person?
- Someone who once killed one person deliberately because they got mad in a bar fight and didn’t like them (and does not regret it even a little bit even years later), but once ran into a burning building and saved three people.
- Someone who has never killed nor saved anyone.
Deontological vegans are much more accepting of a fellow vegan that ate cheese five times but felt remorse about it than someone who ate cheese once and felt no regret.
Reason vs emotion
The morality of utilitarianism is driven more by analytical but sometimes cold reasoning whereas the morality of deontological vegans is driven more by emotional, instinctive responses (love, compassion).
Conclusion
I can’t see any way to fundamentally determine that one philosophy is better than the other – I think we should respect both philosophies and try to get along. If we can understand that the opposing viewpoint is based on a fairly valid but different system of ethical values, this can help with mutual respect.
It may be pointless trying to argue with a person using lots of facts and arguments if what is really causing different opinions is a hard to resolve difference in a core system of ethical values.