I am not trying to trick you, or trap you, or discredit you (or indeed all vegans or anyone else). I am not here to argue on behalf of veganism or against, and I thought my language in my comment was sufficiently diplomatic to convey that I am not trying to attack you, so let me be clear about what I understand and why I ask the question I ask. Please understand that I am not trying to be condescending.
Firstly, I consider that Grainne’s post contains an implicit moral stance along the lines of “one has to be a vegan to be a leftist”. I don’t know for sure that that is they meant to convey, and I apologise to Grainne if that is a misrepresentation.
Secondly, I understand, based on what you have written, that that would be a statement you would broadly agree with. Again, I apologise if I have misunderstood you. But I will proceed on that basis and you are free to correct me, or not, if indeed you care at all.
Now, I would ask if we could clarify that statement? It is one thing, for example, to propose that animal suffering is bad (I think most would agree) and that veganism is “a”, or “the”, most practical of reducing it. In that case you would be well within your rights to disregard hypothetical questions about Inuit people, because at that point we are having a discussion about practicalities. It is another thing, though, to put forward the proposition that “one has a moral duty to be vegan”. Now we would be having a discussion about moral philosophy, and I would like to know how you arrived at your conclusion before I decide whether or not to take it under advisement.
At this point, if you, personally, would not care to be having a discussion about moral philosophy, feel free to skip to the end.
So why do I think it is fair to ask about the Inuit? Well, because “either animal exploitation is always wrong, or there are circumstances in which it is not wrong” is not a trap that I am trying to set. It is a logical truth, and I am interested to know what circumstances you think it would not be wrong, if there are any. For my part, I believe that I should reduce animal suffering, but I believe lots of other things. I believe we should strive to live sustainably, and I believe it is wrong for me to impose my beliefs on others without a good reason. I would certainly feel very iffy telling the Inuit, who have proved that they can live sustainably for thousands of years, that they should change their ways. But if I conclude that I shouldn’t judge the Inuit for that, then that raises the further question; how far does that go? If I have no right to judge the Inuit, do I have a right to judge a fell farmer in the lake district? I have no idea whether or not it is true since it isn’t my field, but I could certainly see that there is perhaps an argument to be made that it might be more ecologically friendly to make clothes from local wool than it would be to ship in vegetable cashmere from overseas. Would it be wrong, in that case, to farm sheep for wool?
Or let’s take the opposite approach and say, hypothetically, that everyone, including the Inuit, should be persuaded to be vegan. How far does that go, exactly? I have seen vegans liken animal farming to slavery and genocide, and I certainly can’t say that they’re wrong to do so, but it raises the question; how far should we be willing to go? We’ve fought wars to stop slavery. We’ve fought wars to stop genocide. If I genuinely believed that slaughtering animals was akin to genocide, should I be willing to kill people working in an abattoir? If I wasn’t would that make me a moral coward?
These are questions that I ask myself, and I don’t have the answers to them. You are under no obligation to answer any of them for me. The reason I wrote this wall of text is essentially because I simply wish that you had interpreted my comment more charitably than you did, and I want to persuade you that these kinds of questions do not necessarily come from a place of bad faith.
FWIW, I am not vegan, but I’d like to be - or something close to it - eventually. I struggle with disordered eating, so it’s hard, though.
I apologize for being harsh and accusatory, you do seem to be looking at things in good faith.
When it comes to moral rules, I’m less concerned with universal rules that apply to all theoretical cases without exception and more concerned with establishing good guidelines. Generally, it’s always possible to find some edge case or hypothetical where a rule may be questionable. In those cases, you just have to use your best judgement. But it’s useful to use your judgement to establish general rules that apply to most cases, because realistically you’re not going to reexamine everything each time you go to the grocery store.
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."
“As far as possible and practical” should clear up certain things, like the idea of starting wars to liberate animals. Killing farmers is not a particularly effective way of advancing the cause of veganism, extreme ethical positions aside, it discredits the movement, and it tends to impair one’s ability to advocate for change. Likewise, I’m not going to go visit an Inuit tribe and try to convince them to go vegan when there are people who are physically and culturally closer to me who are causing more harm.
There is a pretty wide gulf between a thing being morally wrong and a thing being a capital offense. I can’t speak for others, but generally if I draw comparisons to slavery or genocide, it’s not attempting to draw a moral equivalence, but rather trying to show a logical inconsistency in someone’s argument. Some arguments against veganism, if followed to their logical conclusion, could be used to justify things like slavery just as easily, but that’s not the same as saying the two are equally bad.
Applying absolutism to any moral principle tends to produce unreasonable and impractical conclusions. As they say, only a sith deals in absolutes.
I am not trying to trick you, or trap you, or discredit you (or indeed all vegans or anyone else). I am not here to argue on behalf of veganism or against, and I thought my language in my comment was sufficiently diplomatic to convey that I am not trying to attack you, so let me be clear about what I understand and why I ask the question I ask. Please understand that I am not trying to be condescending.
Firstly, I consider that Grainne’s post contains an implicit moral stance along the lines of “one has to be a vegan to be a leftist”. I don’t know for sure that that is they meant to convey, and I apologise to Grainne if that is a misrepresentation.
Secondly, I understand, based on what you have written, that that would be a statement you would broadly agree with. Again, I apologise if I have misunderstood you. But I will proceed on that basis and you are free to correct me, or not, if indeed you care at all.
Now, I would ask if we could clarify that statement? It is one thing, for example, to propose that animal suffering is bad (I think most would agree) and that veganism is “a”, or “the”, most practical of reducing it. In that case you would be well within your rights to disregard hypothetical questions about Inuit people, because at that point we are having a discussion about practicalities. It is another thing, though, to put forward the proposition that “one has a moral duty to be vegan”. Now we would be having a discussion about moral philosophy, and I would like to know how you arrived at your conclusion before I decide whether or not to take it under advisement.
At this point, if you, personally, would not care to be having a discussion about moral philosophy, feel free to skip to the end.
So why do I think it is fair to ask about the Inuit? Well, because “either animal exploitation is always wrong, or there are circumstances in which it is not wrong” is not a trap that I am trying to set. It is a logical truth, and I am interested to know what circumstances you think it would not be wrong, if there are any. For my part, I believe that I should reduce animal suffering, but I believe lots of other things. I believe we should strive to live sustainably, and I believe it is wrong for me to impose my beliefs on others without a good reason. I would certainly feel very iffy telling the Inuit, who have proved that they can live sustainably for thousands of years, that they should change their ways. But if I conclude that I shouldn’t judge the Inuit for that, then that raises the further question; how far does that go? If I have no right to judge the Inuit, do I have a right to judge a fell farmer in the lake district? I have no idea whether or not it is true since it isn’t my field, but I could certainly see that there is perhaps an argument to be made that it might be more ecologically friendly to make clothes from local wool than it would be to ship in vegetable cashmere from overseas. Would it be wrong, in that case, to farm sheep for wool?
Or let’s take the opposite approach and say, hypothetically, that everyone, including the Inuit, should be persuaded to be vegan. How far does that go, exactly? I have seen vegans liken animal farming to slavery and genocide, and I certainly can’t say that they’re wrong to do so, but it raises the question; how far should we be willing to go? We’ve fought wars to stop slavery. We’ve fought wars to stop genocide. If I genuinely believed that slaughtering animals was akin to genocide, should I be willing to kill people working in an abattoir? If I wasn’t would that make me a moral coward?
These are questions that I ask myself, and I don’t have the answers to them. You are under no obligation to answer any of them for me. The reason I wrote this wall of text is essentially because I simply wish that you had interpreted my comment more charitably than you did, and I want to persuade you that these kinds of questions do not necessarily come from a place of bad faith.
FWIW, I am not vegan, but I’d like to be - or something close to it - eventually. I struggle with disordered eating, so it’s hard, though.
I apologize for being harsh and accusatory, you do seem to be looking at things in good faith.
When it comes to moral rules, I’m less concerned with universal rules that apply to all theoretical cases without exception and more concerned with establishing good guidelines. Generally, it’s always possible to find some edge case or hypothetical where a rule may be questionable. In those cases, you just have to use your best judgement. But it’s useful to use your judgement to establish general rules that apply to most cases, because realistically you’re not going to reexamine everything each time you go to the grocery store.
thevegansociety.com defines veganism as:
“As far as possible and practical” should clear up certain things, like the idea of starting wars to liberate animals. Killing farmers is not a particularly effective way of advancing the cause of veganism, extreme ethical positions aside, it discredits the movement, and it tends to impair one’s ability to advocate for change. Likewise, I’m not going to go visit an Inuit tribe and try to convince them to go vegan when there are people who are physically and culturally closer to me who are causing more harm.
There is a pretty wide gulf between a thing being morally wrong and a thing being a capital offense. I can’t speak for others, but generally if I draw comparisons to slavery or genocide, it’s not attempting to draw a moral equivalence, but rather trying to show a logical inconsistency in someone’s argument. Some arguments against veganism, if followed to their logical conclusion, could be used to justify things like slavery just as easily, but that’s not the same as saying the two are equally bad.
Applying absolutism to any moral principle tends to produce unreasonable and impractical conclusions. As they say, only a sith deals in absolutes.
Hi! I’ve not much to add other than I appreciate your reply!