One could argue that from an effectivity viewpoint (helping as many animals as possible), veganism is not behavior-focused enough. Within (strict) veganism, it is better to never eat any meat and dairy and do nothing else than to sometimes eat dairy and donate $10.000 to effective AW charities. In this case, it is better to shift behavior, but veganism is too belief-focused.
I also wonder whether this discussion distracts from what is really important. Most vegans I know in real life (including myself) are somewhere between 95% and 99.5% vegan, and do not push each other to increase that percentage further, since there are more impactful things to focus on. In other words: there are circles in which veganism is already loosely defined. I don’t know how common this is though.
I agree. Maybe we can just say that veganism focuses on the wrong behavior? In addition to donating, I think voting can be more important than your individual diet. Many animal advocacy or rights organizations seem to recognize this, and refer to animal advocatesor animal rights advocates to be more inclusive. They certainly do this for events where they seek to attract a lot of people, like animal rights marches. But for sure, veganism continues to be emphasized too much.
I also agree that the definition given in the post doesn’t reflect popular usage, which is probably something like:
Vegans avoid causing harm to animals, and so avoid purchasing or consuming animal products.
This doesn’t seem particularly maximizing. The first part reflects the moral commitment, and yes it’s possible to be perfectionist about it, but it’s not fundamentally. The second part demands evidence of that moral commitment, and it’s also far from maximizing, since not consuming animal products is very achievable for most people. So, as long as this definition is interpreted in a reasonable way, it doesn’t seem particularly maximalist.
One could argue that from an effectivity viewpoint (helping as many animals as possible), veganism is not behavior-focused enough. Within (strict) veganism, it is better to never eat any meat and dairy and do nothing else than to sometimes eat dairy and donate $10.000 to effective AW charities. In this case, it is better to shift behavior, but veganism is too belief-focused.
I also wonder whether this discussion distracts from what is really important. Most vegans I know in real life (including myself) are somewhere between 95% and 99.5% vegan, and do not push each other to increase that percentage further, since there are more impactful things to focus on. In other words: there are circles in which veganism is already loosely defined. I don’t know how common this is though.
I agree. Maybe we can just say that veganism focuses on the wrong behavior? In addition to donating, I think voting can be more important than your individual diet. Many animal advocacy or rights organizations seem to recognize this, and refer to animal advocates or animal rights advocates to be more inclusive. They certainly do this for events where they seek to attract a lot of people, like animal rights marches. But for sure, veganism continues to be emphasized too much.
I also agree that the definition given in the post doesn’t reflect popular usage, which is probably something like:
Vegans avoid causing harm to animals, and so avoid purchasing or consuming animal products.
This doesn’t seem particularly maximizing. The first part reflects the moral commitment, and yes it’s possible to be perfectionist about it, but it’s not fundamentally. The second part demands evidence of that moral commitment, and it’s also far from maximizing, since not consuming animal products is very achievable for most people. So, as long as this definition is interpreted in a reasonable way, it doesn’t seem particularly maximalist.