22 minute read
Defining Veganism
Advertisement
- The Vegan Society
Veganism is a philosophy.
This means a philosophy in the sense of ‘a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour.’ – Oxford Languages definition.
This is why saying you can be vegan before 6pm each day or that you ‘cheat’ on being vegan is nonsensical. It’s possible you could hold this principle at some point and then abandon it, but are people really adhering to a principle for a few days/hours a week and then abandoning it each time, only to pick it up again later? This stretches the credibility of the idea of having a principle to its limit, and it is hard to take anyone saying they were following a principle in this way seriously. What they would be following is a different principle (of Flexitarianism) rather than what we usually mean when we say someone is following the principle of being vegan. It’s more accurate to say people who are vegan are committed to following the ethical principle that it describes. A shorter definition of veganism I use is that it is ‘a principle against the commodity status and exploitation of other animals’ in order to succinctly get this point across.
If we look again at The Vegan Society definition:
“and way of living”
This is the practical aspect of how we live in the world. It shows how the attitude or principle affects and informs all of our decisions and actions.
“which seeks to exclude— as far as is possible and practicable—”
Avoiding as far as we are able to put into practice (note that this is the meaning of ‘practicable’ – not ‘practical’).
This is acknowledging the concept in philosophy devised by Immanuel Kant known as ‘ought implies can’ meaning if we say someone ought to do something this implies they are capable of doing it. In other words, don’t ask people to do what is not within their power to do. I often phrase this as “vegans don’t ask anyone to do anything they aren’t doing themselves”.
It also acknowledges that putting theory into practice is easier for some areas of animal use than others. Avoiding meat and dairy is the biggest lever we can pull to avoid animal use and avoiding other forms of an- imal use are more difficult because they present greater dilemmas or difficulties, such as medications being tested on animals. This is simply a practical matter of the nature of the world we live in which has used animals for so long and where animal parts are ubiquitous. The existence of ‘grey areas’ in no way justifies not avoiding the ‘black and white areas’ however.
I have compared the situation we find ourselves in to Neurath’s Boat (1)
‘all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals’
Exploitation is defined as ‘the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work’ and ‘the action of making use of and benefiting from resources.’
This introduces a concept of fairness. By exploiting animals we are being unfair and unjust in many ways. We are benefitting from using their bodies, exploiting their reproductive systems, families and lives as if they are ‘put here for us’ or because we have bred them into existence claiming the right to do whatever we want with them. This shows a disregard for the interests of the animal in their own wellbeing, life and familial bonds. Animals are regarded as commodities and property to be bred, traded, slaughtered or used for amusement. As Tom Regan observed, this idea of animals as resources is the root of the problem. ‘Cruelty’ and
‘mistreatment’ are certainly to be opposed as well, but they are things that compound the wrongness.
‘for food, clothing or any other purpose;’
Food is the dietary aspect with clothing, entertainment, transport, animal testing being other common purposes of animal exploitation.
‘and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment.’
An extension of the principle, logically, to pro-actively seek alternatives to animal use. This is a hopeful sentence. There is always a better plant-based alternative, even within plant-based agriculture itself. It speaks to the need for constant research and innovation and of course this is usually a collaborative effort of scientists, engineers, inventors and others. This hints at the concepts of veganism being a collaborative effort. An individual and collective boycott is the exclusionary aspect but this part shows how we should be part of a systemic change, a social movement. Thinking veganism is just a ‘consumer activity’ is just as bad as thinking it is just a diet. The arguments for the benefits of a shift to a vegan system at a societal level can then be made.
In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals.
Finally, just to make it clear, the example of what the principle means in one area of practice is given.
Importance of definitions
Definitions are important so that we may agree on what it is we are referring to and be sure we are even talking about the same thing. Science and philosophy pay attention to the importance of definitions for the sake of clarity and accuracy. If we want to arrive at sound conclusions and use rigorous arguments it is important to be clear on these matters. Definitions are important for how discussions are going to be framed. There are numerous rhetorical tactics that people may employ, often in bad faith, in order to frame discussions and have them in the area they want. The reason we say ‘veganism isn’t a diet’ is so that it isn’t framed around ‘personal choice’ from a list of menu items with no moral component.
Framing can also reveal better and worse arguments for veganism. Even staunch defenders of trying to frame veganism as ‘just a diet’ must recognise some arguments for veganism are better than others. For example, is disgust at the texture of some foods a good enough argument for being vegan? How would that work when it comes to advocating for veganism? Some people may follow a plant-based diet for religious and/or spiritual reasons. But as there are many different religions in the world how could we make a general case for veganism based on just one religion when the beliefs often cancel each other out between religions? If someone is already following a religion then we can certainly point them to how others following the same religion are vegan or how it doesn’t contradict or finds support in their religion. However, this can’t be universalised for vegan advocacy. For that we need a more universal, secular and objective-as-possible advocacy, based on facts, science and logic and more universal moral principles.
Motivations
Of course there is an assumption here that people are advocating for a vegan principle and don’t have some other motivation. If they are utilitarian they may see veganism as part of a ‘suffering reduction’ rather than trying to protect or guarantee animal rights.
If we are interested in educating on animal rights, speciesism and the principle of veganism (against animal use and the view of animals as resources) then we have an interest in maintaining a good understanding of the meaning of these things and avoiding confusion. I can however see that those who are more utilitarian in outlook wouldn’t have an interest in defending these positions and hence why they try to fold veganism into Reducetarianism.
‘Gatekeeping’
Assigning false motives to vegans is a very common tactic when people don’t want to face the actual motives or try to understand the principle. Anti-vegans will say veganism is about everything except wanting to avoid animal use and slaughter. They will say vegans just want to feel superior or will explain how vegans should be advocating for a position they themselves haven’t even
convinced themselves of. Why not have a principle of charity and give vegans the benefit of the doubt that the reason they are vegan is what the vegan is telling them? The charge of ‘gatekeeping’ is similar – why make such accusations whenever a vegan is trying to explain what they think veganism actually means? No doubt there are some vegans who can be over zealous in their micro-management of others, but the charge of being ‘vegan police’ is overused too. Merely explaining what you think the principle of veganism is and striving for accuracy here is not gatekeeping. If people are failing to follow a vegan principle it is because they are failing to follow a vegan principle. It’s not because vegans are setting a bar too high by ‘defining’ them out of membership of a club. The bar for actually having ‘a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour’ is being set too low. No such threshold into a change of attitude towards other animals has actually been passed. We can’t identify what isn’t there.
Minimising the definition of veganism to just a diet is also a form of straw-man-ing. When some people want to argue against veganism they minimise its scope and say it doesn’t cover certain areas. This is sometimes because they want to sell their version of activism that they say veganism doesn’t cover. By minimising veganism down to a diet or consumer activity they can step in and say their activism covers these areas that the vegan pioneers were clearly clueless about until these new organisations were formed. Quite often if they had more knowledge of the history of veganism and what some of the pioneers wrote about their vision for it and its scope they would realise it already covers much of what they say it does not.
If we want to counter this then we have to appeal to a wider definition of veganism, not a narrower one that agrees that it is just a diet or individual consumerist activity.
The areas Reducetarianism and ‘Plant-Based’ do not cover are the very ideas we want to communicate about this greater vision of a new relationship and attitude to other animals. Things that are just a diet fail to seek an end to the use of animals as resources on principle, fail to challenge attitudes and bigotry towards other species and fail to challenge human supremacism. Regardless of the fate of the vegan definition, the position and principle I’ll be making a case for will be that of avoiding the use of other animals as resources and trying to change attitudes. If someone persists on redefining veganism to suit themselves I will simply have to explain what I am making a case for in another way. This is unfortunate as veganism already has the history and traction that we try to draw upon in our advocacy.
Staving off misunderstandings and clarifying our principles are useful for us in defending veganism. If we want to communicate the richer version of veganism rather than the impoverished view then we must challenge any conflation with diet alone which erases all the social justice elements. Granted, it is harder to argue for moral philosophy than for changing one meal a week but you have to decide what it is you are making a case for. If it isn’t veganism, then just be honest about that. There may be terms that more accurately reflect your position that have no ethical component and don’t make a case for the same principle of freeing animals from being used by humans. If people are so adamant that veganism is ‘off-putting’ and about the difficulty of making such a case then it is puzzling why they want to use the word vegan to describe themselves.
Loss of information Asymmetry
There is an asymmetry in the loss of information incurred by different definitions of veganism. Those insisting it is just a diet don’t ‘lose’ any information if they were to just describe themselves as plant-based dieters. Those who are ‘ethical vegans’ (really ‘just’ vegans) lose information if veganism is regarded as just a diet because all the ethical arguments and the case for being vegan are outside of merely describing what you eat if this is for health or environmental reasons. So what are the costs to plant-based or ‘dietary vegans’ compared to erasing other animals from a movement to liberate them from human exploitation?
The cost to vegans of agreeing that veganism is ‘just a diet’ is to lose our best arguments in making a powerful case for the shift in attitude that is needed towards animals, for framing the issues to our advantage rather than acquiescing to a ‘personal choice’ view and preventing misunderstandings and fallacious arguments by communicating what veganism means.
There is asymmetry also in how vegans can fully support arguments for plantbased diets for personal and public health and for the environment but those who argue purely on environmental or health grounds do not support the ethical arguments for veganism. Insisting it is ‘only a diet’ or should only be promoted as such is different to how vegans are in a position to provide and support health and environmental arguments. Vegans can do so without compromising or capitulating to speciesist arguments for animal exploitation. It is one thing to be a Reducetarian and provide arguments for that but another to say you promote veganism and not provide a case for being vegan. How do people who insist on veganism being ‘just a diet’ answer questions or arguments against ‘ethical veganism’ and in favour of various forms of animal use? The truth is that they don’t, either because they don’t believe in the position themselves or haven’t assimilated the arguments to counter and debunk the misinformation and arguments of anti-vegans.
How are we as vegans supposed to communicate our position if we can’t explain what we mean by veganism without being accused of being ‘purist’, ‘dogmatic’ or ‘extremist’ when we are merely stating that it is a social movement with the aim of ending animal exploitation? If there is no way we can communicate this without being accused of gatekeeping it shows that it is the message itself which is opposed. Isn’t it gatekeeping to insist veganism is just a diet when there is clearly a large body of knowledge within vegan studies that shows it encompasses so much more? One way to gatekeep would seem to be preventing a deeper understanding of veganism.
Can plant-based dieters reciprocate support by not positioning us in such a way and leaving the way open to an understanding of veganism as more than an apolitical, consumer choice?
Drawing the line
Questions of line-drawing come up in thinking about which animals are sentient. Tom Regan’s answer was that while we may not know with exact precision where to draw a line this doesn’t mean we can’t say the animals that are regularly exploited aren’t above where that line is drawn, even if it is tentatively drawn. This is because that line will be drawn at borderline areas and so if any doubt exists, it is in these areas, not in the areas of greater certainty. The fallacy of grey is a good concept to have in mind here. Just because there are grey areas doesn’t mean everything is grey. It is similar for the question of ‘where to draw the line’ as vegans. We know it gets into complex areas where farming is concerned because the use of animals is so ubiquitous. However, this doesn’t mean we can’t say with greater certainty which areas are not vegan and are far above any such areas of disputation. It is often futile to discuss such areas with those who aren’t even avoiding the areas they can. This is where non-vegans are actually acting more like vegan police. We want people to be able to use a practical working definition of veganism so they don’t suffer from paralysis of analysis. When looking at the overall pattern of environmental impacts of animal-based versus plant-based foods it is clear that plant-based have
a lower impact. This is due to use of resources being significantly lower as we move down to lower trophic levels. Consuming animals that consume plants obviously magnifies any issues with plant agriculture. We want going vegan to be as easy and accessible as possible without setting up unnecessary rules and restrictions. So we can use a heuristic of choosing plant foods with very high levels of confidence that even the highest impact plant food has lower impact than even the ‘lowest impact’ animal-based foods. This doesn’t mean we can’t continue to learn and improve our understanding of issues within plant agriculture. This comes after we’ve taken the most impactful step and ‘pulled the biggest lever’.
Even those who like to dispute working definitions of veganism still draw the line somewhere, or they risk the term losing all meaning and holding an extremely inconsistent position. There are obviously some actions that even these people would say for sure are not vegan. At one end of the scale there are people who aren’t vegan and they know they aren’t vegan. On the other end there are people who say they are vegan and are definitely not intentionally consuming animal products. For my part I’m happy to acknowledge anyone who says they are vegan because I take this to mean they are following a vegan principle, as we have already defined it. Isn’t this simpler than asking about every situation / activity / ingredient? It comes with the assumption that they are following a principle and have a certain attitude towards animals and their use. What is most surprising though is someone saying they are vegan but they aren’t following the vegan principle.
Categorical Value
Tom Regan talked about inherent value being a categorical value, admitting of no degrees.
‘This criterion does not assert or imply that those who meet it have the status of subject-of-a-life to a greater or lesser degree. One is either the subject-ofa-life, or one is not. All those who are, are so equally.’
- The Case for Animal Rights (1983, page 244)
Regan is talking about his criterion for moral consideration to other animals. He has correctly identified that variables can be categorical in nature and that this implies an egalitarian attitude to everyone covered by the category. Applying this to veganism we see that it is a ‘categorical value’ view that implies equality amongst those who are vegan. There are no ‘degrees’ of being vegan. There are no actual ‘Level 5 vegans’. We could say, after Regan, ‘all those who are vegan, are so equally.’
It is the Reducetarian view of veganism that introduces inequality through admitting of degrees. They say people can be 90% vegan. It is also implied that ‘no-one is 100%’ vegan and this leads to arguments involving Nirvana fallacies.
Defining veganism as a ‘category value’ comes from the acknowledgement that it is a position, a set of values, a stance that people adopt. There may however be value in talking about degrees and percentages and stages but these would be more applicable to the term ‘plant-based diet’. There is no contradiction in saying someone is following a percentage of a certain diet in this sense. Indeed, we can look at the average trophic level of humanity as a whole and conclude that it is around 80%. This is clearly not the same as saying 80% of the human population are 80% of the way to adopting veganism as a philosophy. This is confusing Categorical variables with Numerical Data. We can get numerical data on what proportion of an individual or population’s diet is made up of plants versus animal based-foods. The population could be eating 99% plant-based but they might all believe that animals are commodities and are here for humans to use as we see fit. Are we meant to believe that this is 1% away from being a 100% vegan population when it doesn’t contain a single person who has a vegan position? This is why trying to absorb veganism into Reducetarianism does not work.
Moral Offsetting
Imagine veganism covers an opposition to and avoidance of 100 areas of animal use. Now imagine one person says that ‘actually veganism permits this one particular area of animal use’. Then another says it permits a different area, and so on until in effect all areas are permitted when amalgamated. If we say that each person has a valid claim in saying each area is permitted we are erasing our argument against each area and the argument for avoiding all the areas disappears.
To prevent the ‘offsetting’ of all areas against each other we need to draw a line somewhere. Why not draw the line at where the vegan principle implies? This means the principle remains intact and serves as a guide without comprising the overall message or all the areas being undermined.
Where people try to find loopholes or exemptions we have to ask if these are exceptions that ‘prove’ the rule. (Prove means ‘validate’ in these circumstances). We can apply a Kantian Test to acts to see if we would want everyone doing what these supposed exceptions are, in other words if these acts were to become the rule. Things like Freeganism, consuming roadkill, and hunting wildlife do not work at population levels. Imagine the effect on wildlife if 8 billion people take up hunting. If visiting a circus with animals is meant to be some sort of exemption we have to ask if we would want this to become a rule, or rather a principle for everyone to follow. Such exemptions can’t become a categorical imperative as far as veganism is concerned. Making a mistake or finding oneself in a compromised position may happen from time to time. But these exceptions, self defense situations and the like cannot become our guiding principle for normal circumstances and choices we are actually faced with everyday where we aren’t faced with such dilemmas.
Consistency, Credibility, Integrity
Research shows that people take activists more seriously when they show greater moral consistency. (2) (3)
Anti-vegans love to point out what they see as hypocrisy. Much of this is best countered by explaining what veganism is and countering the argument by not accepting a framing of hypocrisy or indeed calling others hypocrites. We should explain the principle and how we aim for greater consistency. Activists would often get accused of wearing leather shoes and therefore hypocrisy. But vegans can easily explain that their shoes are not animal skin and that we are merely aiming for greater consistency in avoiding more animal use. Of course,
‘vegan is just a diet’ makes no claims for consistency so that is one way to escape the issue. Our own consistency and efforts in the direction of greater consistency show that we take veganism and animal interests seriously and that it is not a trivial issue. As much as people like to think non-vegans like them because they are ‘quiet vegans’ I don’t think any real respect is there and what they actually like is the silence.
In the end any definition cannot hope to fully encompass all the arguments for a position. Even in more precise and tangible subjects like mathematics and physics there are limits to how far we can define things and while some things appear to work on an everyday practical level, once we dig deeper we come across foundational paradoxes and Gödel’s incompleteness theorem and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Our language comes up against a sort of ‘tautological limit’ where as we define things in ever more basic terms we are left with circularity or an infinite regress. To terminate this we must agree on some definitions as our starting point to build larger theories and concepts. At its most basic If these are problems in ‘hard sciences’ then the situation is more difficult
in subjects like ethics. But there are also different expectations for how precise one needs to be in different subject matters and it is unfair to expect absolute accuracy in this area. What we have got is good enough as a signifier of the principle we are following and what we are aiming for. When looked at in good faith and a willingness to understand it, much can be gleaned from the definition of veganism.
Where we can hopefully agree is that a good definition of veganism should be a tool for understanding and clearing up some misconceptions. It should point to the principle that is behind all the practical outcomes. There should be little dispute about the principle which is aimed at reassessing our relationship with animals and no longer exploiting them. The beneficiaries of this understanding should be animals and the aim should be to abolish the industries and practices that use animals as resources. The definition as we have it achieves this as well as can be expected.
Benny Malone
Author of How To Argue With Vegans
(1) https://www.academia. edu/11084757/Neuraths_Boat_and_ Veganism (2) https://www.forbes.com/ sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/11/19/greta-is-right-study-shows-individual-climate-action-boosts-systemicchange/ (3) https://www.sierraclub.org/ sierra/yes-actually-individual-responsibility-essential-solving-climate-crisis
