Vegan definition
Vegan definition
I dont see it here, so figured someone's gotta post it. Here is the definition of veganism as made by the vegan society circa 1944:
"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
You're viewing a single thread.
It is not a great definition in my opinion. The sentence "as far as is possible and practicable" is too vague. It makes people claim that when it is merely very inconvenient to get a vegan meal, it is vegan to eat something with animal products.
In my opinion veganism should be the extention of human rights to animals. That would mean that even killing a pig for a heart valve to safe a human would not be vegan. After all, we wouldn't even kill one human to safe multiple others in a similar scenario because that would violate the rights of the to be killed individual. You could argue that it is better to safe more lives, sure. But it wouldn't be the 'pro-human rights' thing to do.
I believe that is more in line with the philosophy the vegan society was founded to promote than their own current definition.
we wouldn’t even kill one human to safe multiple others in a similar scenario
Yeah, we would? In fact, we make decisions every day that put other's lives in risk, just for our own convenience. Is the one millionth of a person that you kill driving to the grocery store worth it when you could just walk?
I think accidents and risks are different. We wouldn't kill a person to safe 4 people with organ failure.
I think that line is important to explain that its impossible to completely wash our hands of any animal suffering, even as vegans, but I agree with your points that animals should given better rights (the first page or so of "animal liberation" by peter singer explains why the term "equal rights" is kind of unnecessary, but I know what you mean)
It's vague because veganism is an entire moral philosophy. The so-called definition does not capture everything that veganism is, and the area you object to is left intentionally ambiguous in the definition because of the nuance involved.
Why should moral philosophies be vague? I think the problem is that this definition has one foot in one moral framework (deontology) and one in another (utilitarianism).
My application is not at all vague. Is yours?
I did not say the philosophy is vague. I mean that the definition only loosely approximates the actual philosophy because it must be expressed very briefly, and so it is necessarily going to contain vagaries.
I mean that the definition only loosely approximates the actual philosophy because it must be expressed very briefly, and so it is necessarily going to contain vagaries.
Sure, I guess a perfect definition without any ambiguity is impossible. Ultimately I don't think vagueness is the main problem, but the implied inclusion of a utilitarian moral framework is, like I tried to explain here.
I think it should be something like 'the respecting of animal rights and the rejection of animal exploitation and speciesism '. Of course that also raises questions, but at least it would be rights based.
The difference here is you go with an idealist approach and the vegan society definition is more materialist.
This is not to say that 'materialist is better than idealist'. The materialist approach starts from our current reality and built an idea from that (we exploit animals for many things, we should try to avoid that). I think it is way more precise and approachable to say that we try to avoid animal oppression as much as possible instead of starting a conversation about rights extension. This second approach can be difficult to apprehend at first and raises many questions.
Also in the materialist approach states clearly the reason behind the concept : unnecessary suffering. Talking about rights is 100% necessary too, but it can raise the question on why : then we have to talk about the consequences and the end goal.
Introducing vegan concept from a materialist approach seems slightly better to me. Unless you know your audience who specifically be more inclined to an other approach this is a good default.
Last point : I felt like you criticizing the vegan society here "vegan society was founded to promote than their own current definition". But really isn't this the whole point? Like anti-racist, women rights, trans rights, etc organizations, whenever you advocate for ideas you need to advocate for a specific definition of them.
I think it is way more precise and approachable to say that we try to avoid animal oppression as much as possible instead of starting a conversation about rights extension.
What if you get the question what animal oppression means or why it is bad? I think you can't really avoid talking about animal rights unless it immediately clicks for them, which is rare.
Also in the materialist approach states clearly the reason behind the concept : unnecessary suffering.
Utilitarianism where the goal is to minimize suffering and maximize happiness is another popular approach that is very intuitive for many people. I assume this is what you mean with a materialist approach. Talking about the necessity of suffering raises another issue: how are we to define what is necessary? Necessary for what, survival? If that is the case, what about the crop deaths involved in the production of snacks we don't need?
To criticize utilitarianism, you could ask people if they are against 'happy (human) slavery', or the rape where the rapists get more joy than the victim suffering (maybe if the victim was drugged).
Introducing vegan concept from a materialist approach seems slightly better to me.
The main issue with such an approach is that in my opinion, it doesn't really lead to veganism. In practice it might make people abstain from purchasing animal products, but if there were to be 'happy farms', these people would not be against animal exploitation. I fail to see how exploitation can be condemned without this animal rights approach.
I think the concept of animal rights is not that hard to explain, although maybe a bit less intuitive. Animals are similar to us and can suffer like us, so they should get the same basic rights we benefit from. It is in their interest like our rights are in our interest. It's not in their interest to drive or vote, as they can't do those things, so they don't need rights for those things. Just like males don't need abortion rights. If you think human rights are crucial and don't think the same way about animal rights, you should be able to name a trait that humans have and animals lack, that if humans were to lack should disqualify them from having human rights.
But really isn’t this the whole point? Like anti-racist, women rights, trans rights, etc organizations, whenever you advocate for ideas you need to advocate for a specific definition of them.
I'm not against a vegan definition. I just think that it should be based upon animal rights, and not a minimization of suffering, for the reasons explained above. I believe that the founders already had this animal rights mindset and that therefore the current definition is not entirely in line with their goals.