Thanks for the comment. I suspect there are a couple of distinct elements that have been conflated in your arguments that I will try to disentangle.
As far as practical considerations in the context of personal changes to limit harm towards animals go, I not only agree with you that first-order veganism is sensible, it is also one of the key reasons why I am a 99% first-order vegan. Forget animals, I am just being kind to myself and eliminating decision fatigue by following a simple rule that says : animal products, no go. It just makes things so much more convenient and I would certainly recommend that to others too.
However, practical strategies, mental tricks and hacks should not be mistaken for ethical principles. I am sure you will agree that the latter requires reasoning and justification not subjected to the whims of mental hacks. If the community reifies those practical steps as a core component of the ethical baseline to be considered an adequate supporter/defender of animal welfare, then it is clearly drifting away from the primary considerations that brought it together in the first place.
Actually, I meant that as a matter of practical ethics, we may be better off in our attempts to do good if we use what you call ‘mental hacks.’
For example, utilitarians have near-universally acknowledged that if we think in terms of heuristics and rules of thumb, we’ll more reliably maximise utility than by trying to use the decision criterion, ‘do what maximises utility.’ See e.g. this page or any of the literature on two-level utilitarianism.
Is there any empirical evidence to back up the claim that following the conventional definition of veganism leads to greater overall harm reduction rather than thinking in more consequential terms ?
Also, unless I am mistaken, the utilitarian argument for rule-of-thumb applies in a context where we are either faced with an inability to determine the right course of action (owing to uncertainties in estimates of potential outcomes, say) or when the decision that emerges from such a calculation runs strongly counter to common sense.
I don’t believe either is the case with the definition of veganism. It is not common-sensical to avoid products with trace elements of animal ingredients for example.
Thanks for the comment. I suspect there are a couple of distinct elements that have been conflated in your arguments that I will try to disentangle.
As far as practical considerations in the context of personal changes to limit harm towards animals go, I not only agree with you that first-order veganism is sensible, it is also one of the key reasons why I am a 99% first-order vegan. Forget animals, I am just being kind to myself and eliminating decision fatigue by following a simple rule that says : animal products, no go. It just makes things so much more convenient and I would certainly recommend that to others too.
However, practical strategies, mental tricks and hacks should not be mistaken for ethical principles. I am sure you will agree that the latter requires reasoning and justification not subjected to the whims of mental hacks. If the community reifies those practical steps as a core component of the ethical baseline to be considered an adequate supporter/defender of animal welfare, then it is clearly drifting away from the primary considerations that brought it together in the first place.
Actually, I meant that as a matter of practical ethics, we may be better off in our attempts to do good if we use what you call ‘mental hacks.’
For example, utilitarians have near-universally acknowledged that if we think in terms of heuristics and rules of thumb, we’ll more reliably maximise utility than by trying to use the decision criterion, ‘do what maximises utility.’ See e.g. this page or any of the literature on two-level utilitarianism.
Is there any empirical evidence to back up the claim that following the conventional definition of veganism leads to greater overall harm reduction rather than thinking in more consequential terms ? Also, unless I am mistaken, the utilitarian argument for rule-of-thumb applies in a context where we are either faced with an inability to determine the right course of action (owing to uncertainties in estimates of potential outcomes, say) or when the decision that emerges from such a calculation runs strongly counter to common sense.
I don’t believe either is the case with the definition of veganism. It is not common-sensical to avoid products with trace elements of animal ingredients for example.