I understand where this post is coming from, but I disagree with it pretty strongly. I might write a full post to flesh out my disagreement, but here are my messy thoughts:
I agree with downgrading the importance of being vegan, but I disagree strongly with making it taboo.
Many vegans actually define veganism not as a diet but as an ethical position. I embrace this—I actually think we should broaden the scope of veganism. If you eat vegan normally, and for the right reasons, but make the odd exception (I’m guilty as well!) then I want to say you’re vegan.
Implicit in the framing of this post is that the thing we’re against is factory farming. For me, and I expect many animal advocates, this isn’t enough—I think all killing of animals is murder, and I’m against all of it. This distinction is important because it requires adopting a stronger moral position, which veganism reflects.
The climate change analogy doesn’t work, because emitting some GHGs is morally unproblematic—the problem is how much we emit. Eating animals, however, is always to be complicit in murder.
Yes there is a personal cost. I also experience a cost from not being allowed to murder people—but I don’t question that cost. Similarly, I never question the cost of not eating meat. I would never want to be complicit in murder.
I agree that we should embrace non-vegans in the animal rights movement. We want as many on board as possible. But I would be uncomfortable with non-vegans leading the animal rights movement. I like the ‘monk’ analogy—I want those who are seriously non-speciesist to lead.
Making it taboo is a bit like saying… “being strictly against the murder of innocent children, such that you boycott all products that require the murder of innocent children to be made? We don’t do that here. We’re against the torture of innocent children, but you go ahead and purchase fragments of their corpses if you want.” The alternative, of course is to take an approach where you view veganism as an ideal that all should strive for, but acknowledge that it’s hard, people face different challenges, and so are also not judgy of people who fail to meet that standard. My perception is that many animal advocacy groups already do this well.
I understand where this post is coming from, but I disagree with it pretty strongly. I might write a full post to flesh out my disagreement, but here are my messy thoughts:
I agree with downgrading the importance of being vegan, but I disagree strongly with making it taboo.
Many vegans actually define veganism not as a diet but as an ethical position. I embrace this—I actually think we should broaden the scope of veganism. If you eat vegan normally, and for the right reasons, but make the odd exception (I’m guilty as well!) then I want to say you’re vegan.
Implicit in the framing of this post is that the thing we’re against is factory farming. For me, and I expect many animal advocates, this isn’t enough—I think all killing of animals is murder, and I’m against all of it. This distinction is important because it requires adopting a stronger moral position, which veganism reflects.
The climate change analogy doesn’t work, because emitting some GHGs is morally unproblematic—the problem is how much we emit. Eating animals, however, is always to be complicit in murder.
Yes there is a personal cost. I also experience a cost from not being allowed to murder people—but I don’t question that cost. Similarly, I never question the cost of not eating meat. I would never want to be complicit in murder.
I agree that we should embrace non-vegans in the animal rights movement. We want as many on board as possible. But I would be uncomfortable with non-vegans leading the animal rights movement. I like the ‘monk’ analogy—I want those who are seriously non-speciesist to lead.
Making it taboo is a bit like saying… “being strictly against the murder of innocent children, such that you boycott all products that require the murder of innocent children to be made? We don’t do that here. We’re against the torture of innocent children, but you go ahead and purchase fragments of their corpses if you want.” The alternative, of course is to take an approach where you view veganism as an ideal that all should strive for, but acknowledge that it’s hard, people face different challenges, and so are also not judgy of people who fail to meet that standard. My perception is that many animal advocacy groups already do this well.