Veganism is Deontological

[JacobEdward]

I agree it's a false choice and there would be a third way. I actually said as much in the first draft of my original post but decided to deleted this to make it more concise. The point is as a thought experiment to illustrate what your core philosophy is.

I'm not even arguing in favour of one philosophy over the other. I am just trying to create an understanding of the two philosophies. The goal of my article is to try and get each side to understand where the other is coming from, and understand that, in some arguments, you either need to address the underlying philosophy of the other person, or accept it.

I do not "fight for animal usage a lot" but we can perhaps agree to disagree on that.

I'm confused, I thought you were Vegan... what underlying philosophy hasnt been addressed?

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Facts and rational arguments may not convince someone if they have a difference in underlying philosophy. So the arguments lead to frustration because one is deontological and the other is utilitarian and they don´t realize they either need to debate that, or agree to disagree, or at least approach the debate with a better understanding and respect for where the other is coming from.

Another one might be a libertarian and a liberal arguing about healthcare insurance and taxes but their real underlying difference is what´s more important - freedom or equality/justice.

It was funny how this article came about it. I was just minding my own business thinking about nothing whatsoever to do with veganism or philosophy when I suddenly thought, out of nowhere "veganism is deontological". It´s funny how the brain seems to subconsciously chew over things without informing the conscious mind it´s doing it until it gets to an answer.

I am not sure it was a very well written article though. A bit long winded and rambling as well as written in a way that seemed to irritate people as I was still formulating my thoughts as it was entirely my own insight and I couldn´t find any articles written by others on this to help me. However I think the core insight that I had that veganism is deontological is very likely accurate.

However I later realized there may be an argument that vegans are deontological because people are deontological i.e. I´m not so confident that vegans are more deontological or not vs the average person.

I guess most people are more deontological than utilitarian, but I personally am in the middle between the two. Someone told me I practice "threshold deontology". I`d never heard of it but I googled it and I think that´s true. I don´t think many people are pure utilitarian as that leads to some cold logic that goes against our instincts.

I am probably not vegan because I am not strict enough, e.g. I bought a shoe with a leather tag on it and ate some birthday cake.

 

[JacobEdward]

Facts and rational arguments may not convince someone if they have a difference in underlying philosophy. So the arguments lead to frustration because one is deontological and the other is utilitarian and they don´t realize they either need to debate that, or agree to disagree, or at least approach the debate with a better understanding and respect for where the other is coming from.

What deontological argument would there be for anything that wasnt veganism? You're vegetarian, not vegan?

Another one might be a libertarian and a liberal arguing about healthcare insurance and taxes but their real underlying difference is what´s more important - freedom or equality/justice.

Hilarious how distorted our world is, the $ is beyond what would have been needed

It was funny how this article came about it. I was just minding my own business thinking about nothing whatsoever to do with veganism or philosophy when I suddenly thought, out of nowhere "veganism is deontological". It´s funny how the brain seems to subconsciously chew over things without informing the conscious mind it´s doing it until it gets to an answer.

The society is horrifying, the government lies about the nature of reality, if there were vegans mind raping you they should go to hell

I am not sure it was a very well written article though. A bit long winded and rambling as well as written in a way that seemed to irritate people as I was still formulating my thoughts as it was entirely my own insight and I couldn´t find any articles written by others on this to help me. However I think the core insight that I had that veganism is deontological is very likely accurate.

Well, it's a behavior, in order for it to be deontological it would have to be consistent with principles, like you cant say it matters and then abuse humans just because you can

However I later realized there may be an argument that vegans are deontological because people are deontological i.e. I´m not so confident that vegans are more deontological or not vs the average person.

Vegans are more virtuous on average, the utilitarian vs deontology doesnt have to be tied to virtue, the philosophy is not itself consequentialist, its about the truth, not mental exercises

I guess most people are more deontological than utilitarian, but I personally am in the middle between the two. Someone told me I practice "threshold deontology". I`d never heard of it but I googled it and I think that´s true. I don´t think many people are pure utilitarian as that leads to some cold logic that goes against our instincts.

I have the opposite view, most people very readily disregard rights for the sake of what they think are good consequences
I am deontological

I am probably not vegan because I am not strict enough, e.g. I bought a shoe with a leather tag on it and ate some birthday cake.

Is it really too hard for you to find different shoes and eat before the party?

 

[Jamie in Chile]

Can you give an example or two or three of how most people disregard rights for the sake of what they think are good consequences. That might be a worthwhile debate.

Yes I am vegetarian. I don't want to answer the question "Is it really too hard for you to find different shoes and eat before the party?" because this is a vegan forum and I don't want to defend a non-vegan position regularly on the forum. Maybe another time. I have a lot more in common with vegans than against so instead of that argument why don´t we discuss what we can do to reduce animal suffering instead of quibbling over that detail?

I don´t see utilitarian vs deontology as a question of virtue. I think most vegans are virtuous whether utilitarian, deontological or something else.

I do think deontology + ethics = veganism, perhaps we agree here?

 

[JacobEdward]

Can you give an example or two or three of how most people disregard rights for the sake of what they think are good consequences. That might be a worthwhile debate.

Apart from veganism?
How about the right to a non distorted world? A world with two wheel bicycles and four wheel cars... someone made that decision (assuming because they thought there would be good consequences, I disagree of course)...
How society treats children is a HUGE part of the problem, if we treated them as if they had actual rights, education would look a bit different right?

Yes I am vegetarian. I don't want to answer the question "Is it really too hard for you to find different shoes and eat before the party?" because this is a vegan forum and I don't want to defend a non-vegan position regularly on the forum. Maybe another time. I have a lot more in common with vegans than against so instead of that argument why don´t we discuss what we can do to reduce animal suffering instead of quibbling over that detail?

This is the only place I would ever want you to make those arguments... I truly dont know how you could be so confused...

I don´t see utilitarian vs deontology as a question of virtue. I think most vegans are virtuous whether utilitarian, deontological or something else.

Well... maybe... if someone were born into some sufficiently affluent circumstances where the conflicts literally never arise I could see how someone would mistakenly be utilitarian but virtue is almost exclusively deontological... truly its hilarious, as if utilitarianism is the root of all evil

I do think deontology + ethics = veganism, perhaps we agree here?

what does + ethics mean... deontology is not some military regime, its a philosophy...
natural law, logic of principles type thing
morality is an attribute of people interacting in the world
as if saying the color yellow is the attribute of a banana

 

[Jamie in Chile]

I think some of the things you see as rights vs consequences may be areas where other things are mixed in. People may just be acting selfishly or without knowledge or instinctively, so it´s hard to see in those cases whether or not it really come down to a consequential vs deontology argument or not.

Arguing against veganism, or aspects of it, on here is likely going into a church to preach athiesm. Not exactly the right place.

When I say "deontology + ethics" I mean if you are deontological and ethical and apply those principles properly, that should, in theory, lead to becoming vegan.

 

[JacobEdward]

I think some of the things you see as rights vs consequences may be areas where other things are mixed in. People may just be acting selfishly or without knowledge or instinctively, so it´s hard to see in those cases whether or not it really come down to a consequential vs deontology argument or not.

How can you guess most people are deontological and then say its selfish ignorance or instinct? Utilitarian is the instinctual leap, not deontology

Arguing against veganism, or aspects of it, on here is likely going into a church to preach athiesm. Not exactly the right place.

No, its here to ask questions from people who actually think about this stuff instead of wanting you to spread your flawed arguments to a bunch of people who dont think about this all the time... you seriously think you have an argument?

When I say "deontology + ethics" I mean if you are deontological and ethical and apply those principles properly, that should, in theory, lead to becoming vegan.

its like you didnt read what I wrote

 

[Jamie in Chile]

I don't want to debate with you (at the very least not right now) because you haven´t been very polite.

e.g. "I truly don`t know how you could be so confused..."
e.g. "its like you didnt read what I wrote"
e.g. "Is it really too hard for you "
e.g. "you seriously think you have an argument?" is unnecessarily aggressive
e.g. saying "flawed arguments" is OK if you say "your arguments are flawed because of x,y,z" but you used the word flawed in a sentence that made no such no useful point but was just an attack

You didn´t do anything that bad, but it´s just not how I personally like to do things.

I understand you want to have a long-winded argument with someone for some reason, but I am not interested. You will have to find someone else.

 

[JacobEdward]

I don't want to debate with you (at the very least not right now) because you haven´t been very polite.

e.g. "I truly don`t know how you could be so confused..."
e.g. "its like you didnt read what I wrote"
e.g. "Is it really too hard for you "
e.g. "you seriously think you have an argument?" is unnecessarily aggressive
e.g. saying "flawed arguments" is OK if you say "your arguments are flawed because of x,y,z" but you used the word flawed in a sentence that made no such no useful point but was just an attack

You say you have an argument for not being vegan but then refuse to give it and then say I'm out of line because I havent explained why your unarticulated arguments are wrong... haha

You didn´t do anything that bad, but it´s just not how I personally like to do things.

Saying its a personal preference doesnt change that its text and you literally could, but arent... its like sophistry

I understand you want to have a long-winded argument with someone for some reason, but I am not interested. You will have to find someone else.

I am always open to arguments, I've just never found anybody willing or able to make a legit argument against veganism... its always this social suggestion that they can or whatever it is... 10+ years vegan... waiting on you

 

[VeganRachel]

Oh my goodness , there are a lot of words and mental concepts in this thread . I like to keep it really simple .. I follow my heart , which knows what my Inner truth is .. I am guided by my deep feelings , which are felt in my core .. I feel there is often a danger in over-thinking things ..

I am connected to all beings , and l love them ..( including humans ) I would not eat another human , so why would l eat an animal ?

I don't need to know or think about rules / ideologies / intellectual philosophies and the why and where of them ...

I just follow my heart - it guides me perfectly .. Walk the path of your own heart ..

Blessings to all , with love from Blissful xxoo

Thank you for your thoughts, you make it so real. i feel it is selfish and cruel to inflict pain and suffering on innocent beings. I just follow my heart.

 

[VeganRachel]

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?

• 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.

The first person seems to have caused more total good. However, if you are deontological, your feelings about the person in example a) may improve considerably if I had said they deeply regret it. To some utilitarians, that may be less important than the action itself.

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.

Your post is interesting but too analytical and intellectual for me. I know there are vegans who are more committed to what they do.
I know some vegans are quieter, more flexible, less serious, etcetera. I recently ticked off (and lost) a vegan friend because she said-- I speak up more
(without being obnoxious) and she says she doesn't force her opinions on others. It was more than this but thats' the simple vesion. (I do not force my opinions on others, I simply mention I am vegan and some reasons why including health. Is that "forcing"? when they say their health is poor???). However, I wish someone had told ME about veganism, the way i speak up, years beore i made the decision. I would have done it sooner. So, some vegans who are very quiet and don't speak up can also end up
not educating humans like me.

 

[silva]

Your post is interesting but too analytical and intellectual for me. I know there are vegans who are more committed to what they do.
I know some vegans are quieter, more flexible, less serious, etcetera. I recently ticked off (and lost) a vegan friend because she said-- I speak up more
(without being obnoxious) and she says she doesn't force her opinions on others. It was more than this but thats' the simple vesion. (I do not force my opinions on others, I simply mention I am vegan and some reasons why including health. Is that "forcing"? when they say their health is poor???). However, I wish someone had told ME about veganism, the way i speak up, years beore i made the decision. I would have done it sooner. So, some vegans who are very quiet and don't speak up can also end up
not educating humans like me.

Obnoxious is subjective. It's an individuals perspective. If someone feels you're being obnoxious you can't say their feelings are wrong.
What approach works for some people is completely antithetical to others.
From my experience, simply coming across as normal works far better to sway people than making it a moral judgement.

I'm more utilitarian the older I get

 

[VeganRachel]

Obnoxious is subjective. It's an individuals perspective. If someone feels you're being obnoxious you can't say their feelings are wrong.
What approach works for some people is completely antithetical to others.
From my experience, simply coming across as normal works far better to sway people than making it a moral judgement.

I'm more utilitarian the older I get

Well. I can learn. I was dealing with a very quiet vegan. If I had not told her one day I am vegan, she never would have known because
she does not tell others that she is. She dislikes vegans who tell others that they are vegan, and those who talk about
animals and that they love and do not eat them. I also spoke up and stated that, after going to a big buffet restaurant where piles of
cooked animal were stacked, three times, that I was not comfy eating there. I also gave my opinons about chemo not being healthy
for cancer patients and destroying their immune system.
If I had not told others I was vegan I would have not met 2 other vegans in a yoga class. Are not we vegans consistently judging those
humans who eat flesh and blood?, I think we all are. And, omnivores are constantly judging and dissing vegans, as the mainstream media is.
Look at that dopey article about why lots of vegans retuen to meat eating. There were so many lame excuses its' not funny. But some of us judge
more than others. If we do not speak up for the voiceless, how is
the world to change? by being a gentle quiet vegan and being a mouse in the corner?.