Holistic veganism
Oct 20th
As a vegan, I’m interested in more than patterns of consumption. I’m interested in dissolving speciesist attitudes, spreading an anti-oppression worldview, & ensuring respect for all. I oppose human oppression as much as nonhuman oppression. I value honesty, respect, & community. I value discussions about respectful communication, discussions about the confinement of any species, & discussions about racism in the vegan community. I want to help ensure that the vegan movement is not transphobic or sexist. I want a veganism that works for everyone—not just “the animals” & not just the middle & upper class. You might call this approach “holistic veganism”: to acknowledge all issues connected to veganism & speciesism.
Holistic veganism is a target of continual criticism from so-called “practical vegans.” Their argument is that language usage is unimportant—that worldviews are unimportant—that even human liberation movements are unimportant (!). Instead, they claim, only suffering & happiness matter. And they claim that, because “there is so much animal suffering,” we should ignore all that other stuff. This was, for a time, my understanding, too, but I’ve come to question a lot about this approach. Now I pose the question, Is “practical veganism” really practical?
My current belief is that, if our goal is liberation for everyone, holistic veganism is actually more ‘practical’ for at least two reasons. First, holistic veganism takes into account an understanding of the nature & structure of the oppression we wish to end—how it came to exist & how it is perpetuated today. Second, holistic veganism takes into account ideas & attitudes perceived to be intrinsically connected to veganism & the world we want to create.
The structure of oppression
The origin of oppression
When we understand the origin of oppression, I think we understand how to stop oppression at it’s earliest root. This is a reason to focus on exploitation. Nibert’s theory of oppression explains that exploitation is where nonhuman oppression begins. (We wouldn’t have the confinement, killing, or physical violence of animal agriculture if we didn’t first choose to exploit other animals for the products of the bodies. It all starts with exploiting them for their bodies.) Because of this, veganism is essentially a movement to end exploitation, & we talk about “the vegan ideal of nonexploitation. ”
On the other hand, “practical veganism” dismisses this understanding of cause & effect as “just a bunch of theories,” & they dismiss “exploitation” as an “abstract concept.” Because of this, “practical vegans” push aside non-exploitation ideals in order to make room for new, reduced-suffering versions of exploitation, which keep the cycle of oppression going in new forms.
The perpetuation of oppression
When we understand how oppression is perpetuated, I think we understand how to take away the support system & weaken the structure of oppression. This is motivation to consider ideas, attitudes, & language. Nibert’s theory of oppression explains that speciesist ideas justify nonhuman oppression, making it appear normal & inevitable. (“It’s O.K. to kill them; they’re just animals.”) So, as a vegan, I work on my own speciesism & I try to stop the spread of speciesism through language. I believe that, without speciesist atittudes as a justification, speciesist behavior couldn’t continue.
But “practical veganism” dismisses these concerns. “Practical veganism” asserts that attitudes don’t have to change—only patterns of consumption have to change. I think this understanding ignores that our attitudes determine our consumption & our behavior.
Ideas & attitudes connected to veganism
I recognize speciesism as one oppression among many, so I tend to discuss both speciesism specifically & oppression more broadly. I recognize the centrality of respect to anti-oppression work—so I promote respectful activism & respectful communication. I recognize veganism as a dedication to questioning everything—social norms, advocacy norms, & my own beliefs—so I invite debate, I continually question conventions, & I strive to learn from others’ criticisms. I recognize veganism as a movement against hierarchy, so I help form groups that avoid hierarchical structures (L.O.V.E. is a collective).
But again, “practical veganism” ignores these concerns, accepting & reinforcing any social norm consistent with “effectiveness”; working within hierarchical structures that distribute power unequally; & dismissing, even silencing, criticism within their groups.
In defense of holistic veganism
If our goal is liberation for all beings, I think a holistic understanding of veganism is helpful. It helps us to recognize the origins of that oppression, so we can stop it at the root. It helps us to recognize how that oppression is sustained, so we can stop feeding it. And it helps us to ensure that our groups and our outreach efforts are built on principles consistent with a vegan world.
Some of the common criticisms of holistic veganism arise from a genuine, core difference in values between vegans. Much of the criticism, however, seems to be simply misinformed. There are people who seem to honestly believe that, if we aren’t “practical vegans,” we must be arrogant, obsessive, uninformed vegans. My intention with this post has been to clarify some of the reasons—almost completely overlooked—why a holistic understanding of veganism may in fact be helpful, logical, effective.
Vegan activism is respectful activism
about 1 month ago - 3 comments
Veganism has been defined as the doctrine that humans should live without exploiting other animals. At LOVE we tend to discuss veganism as a broad, holistic anti-oppression or non-exploitation movement. In these ways, veganism is about tearing down oppressive structures, hierarchies, and old attitudes. Veganism is about questioning the status quo and, often, criticizing the [...]
Political Correctness, Political Expediency, and Veganism
about 2 months ago - 4 comments
This is a guest post from Ida. Ida blogs regularly at The Vegan Ideal, a site that “works to cultivate a process by which theory, learning and skills based on veganism as the principle of non-exploitation are put into practice.”
While L.O.V.E. takes an anti-oppression approach based on the vegan ideal of nonexploitation, there are many [...]
Toward vegan language
about 3 months ago - 1 comment
There is some debate in vegan circles over how “practical” it is to consider issues of language. I believe that thinking about language issues is very useful because it allows us to understand speciesism and veganism more holistically, helping us to more fully understand the problems we face and the world we want to create. [...]
Giving meaning to veganism
about 4 months ago - 6 comments
Vegetarians often have an ambivalent relationship with the animal welfare corporation PETA. In the past, I had reservations about that corporation (e.g., the “Holocaust on Your Plate” campaign), yet continued to distribute their literature. And when I did, I had to ignore that unsettling feeling of unwholesomeness, justifying my actions to myself in the name [...]
On not mistaking social service for social change
about 4 months ago - 4 comments
Ida’s recent post at The Vegan Ideal, “The Absurdity of ‘Triage’ and the Need for Social Change” recalled for me Paul Kivel’s excellent essay “Social service or social change?” in The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Non-Profit Industrial Complex. A version of the essay is available online. In this excerpt (this portion is [...]
The honey issue & focusing on the most marginalized groups
about 5 months ago - 3 comments
The first result when one searches the words “vegan” & “honey” on the Google search engine is the website “Why Honey is Not Vegan.” This website, created in 1999, explains clearly & directly the reasons why veganism—in its original sense, as non-exploitation—stands against the exploitation of bees. The website pairs this explanation with an in-depth [...]
Is it natural? Does it matter?
about 6 months ago - 2 comments
In a sociology course I’m taking, to convince the class that social change is possible, the instructor told us, “Humans don’t actually have any instincts.” In Robert Jensen’s Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity—a book that I recommend—to convince readers that change is possible, Jensen emphasizes that aggressive, king-of-the-hill masculinity is socially constructed, [...]
The factors of oppression
about 7 months ago - 3 comments
In the first chapter of Animal Rights/Human Rights, David Nibert presents a model of oppression I have found helpful to work with. For me, it offers a broader context in which to make sense of my experiences. I encourage you to consider this model and test if it resonates with your own experiences of oppression.
According [...]
Pockets of Change: Spreading Vegetarianism in a Buddhist Community
about 8 months ago - 2 comments
Community based activism is, by its nature, often not well known outside a small area. Community based activism can occur in isolated pockets, so there may be great work happening in our area that we don’t know about. I know it helps me to learn about the community based activism people are engaged in, both [...]
The meanings of ‘our’
about 8 months ago - 6 comments
Recently, while reading a pamphlet we’ve been developing about circuses, an activist stopped at the line, “Some animals, like elephants, may be forced to work for over 45 years for our entertainment,” and suggested replacing the word ‘our’ with ‘your.’ This comment intrigued me because the word ‘our’ was deliberately chosen to suggest a particular [...]
about 4 months ago
I am what you call a “practical vegan.”
By prioritizing on actions and habits, I don’t claim that language or attitudes aren’t important, rather, I triage. I choose to focus my energy on the areas where I think I’ll do the most good/ prevent the most harm.
From my own personal experience as a vegan and witnessing others’ transformations, I believe the quickest route to a social paradigm shift is through changing actions, then minds. That’s why I focus my energies most on helping people with the question “how vegan?” more than the question “why vegan?”
I believe both are important and I never want to tell another sincere animal advocate what to do, but I remain firm in my own personal commitment to what you call “practical veganism.”
about 4 months ago
elaine, thanks for the contribution.
The word “triage” was new to me. I see how it’s applicable to the ‘practical vegan’ approach. A gut reaction I had when reading the definition is that I don’t like how it seems to imply a hierarchy–some individuals being more important to save than others. (Which plays out in nonhuman animal advocacy–mammals and birds often being prioritized over insects, for instance.)
Upon further thought, I mostly feel that the “triage” approach seems to ignore the fact that all of this nonhuman suffering comes from the same root. It focuses so much on the fact of the suffering–and the specific details of the suffering, determining which is “the worst”–and so it seems to ignore the larger patterns. My point is that, if we can learn from the larger patterns, then instead of just covering up the symptoms, we can actually get rid of the problem. Of course, I think the symptoms only exist because there’s a problem underneath it all. Factory farming doesn’t just happen, does it?
So, the problem for me is not just that ‘practical vegans’ focus on changing actions rather than minds. It’s that the activists themselves rarely seem to understand or seriously consider the way that oppression works. I know of several people who left non-profit animal welfare organizations primarily because of the sexism and racism in those organizations. If these organizations understood speciesism as a form of oppression, I think they would take other forms of oppression like racism more seriously, because they’d realize that they’re all intertwined.
My feeling is that holistic vegans are not just vegans ‘who spread the love around’ and contribute just a little bit to each instance of oppression. Instead, I think holistic vegans get to the root, by recognizing the root in every instance. ‘Practical vegans’ on the other hand seem to skim along the surface and only consider the individual instances.
This seems to come back to core beliefs: is our goal to reduce suffering or to end oppression? For a while, I couldn’t decide between these. Then I realized the suffering only exists because of the oppression. When you end the oppression, you end the suffering too. So I want to end oppression.
steve
about 4 months ago
This is an important post, steve. Thank you.
Another way to look at it is that those who focus solely on “reducing suffering” take a ontological approach, while those who focus on ending oppression take an epistemological one. One studies the nature of existence, the other the nature of knowledge. Carol J. Adams discusses this distinction in her book “Neither Man Nor Beast.” From an ontological perspective, we might argue that because animals are sentient, their lives should be respected. From an epistemological perspective, we would look at how we came to be entrenched in our exploitation of animals in the first place. I think this is important because exploitation becomes a habit, and that is the hardest part to change. So I agree with you, steve, that the epistemological approach is actually more practical in a sense because it takes us a step deeper to examining our views and habitudes. We’re not just pitting our beliefs against each other and seeing which one wins in the game of logic, which as elaine says does derive great influence from habit; we’re asking where did those beliefs and habits come from, how did so much suffering (that we seek to reduce) come to be?
But it seems that the epistemological perspective is built off of the ontological one: of course we believe that animals are all sentient, but we take things deeper. Why are there people who believe otherwise? So I do think it’s important for others to understand that point, but I think it’s a limited view. The approach which asks us to question ourselves is the same one that asks us to make all sorts of connections. It’s the difference between material capital and social capital (as Adam W. calls it), between a marketplace discussion and a social justice discussion, between being and inter-being.
You can see in other social justice movements this same blindness to epistemology where certain privileged members or perspectives of the movement feel threatened by the less privileged because they refuse to see privilege as an issue. And, of course, what happens is that the former view the latter as somehow wasting their power (privilege?) through affirmative action, “moral purity,” “division of the movement,” when in fact all the latter are trying to do is ask deeper questions. Somehow what seeks to unite through interconnectedness gets portrayed as divisive by those who seek to unite by only looking in one direction.
So the only reason that the ontological approach is less practical is that it is simply a less complete approach. It is when we choose to cling to the ontology (reduction of suffering) and ignore epistemology (anti-oppression) that we have a problem. And it’s a problem I see all the time amongst Buddhists and lacto-ovo vegetarians who are fixated on either suffering or killing.
about 4 months ago
aiko, wow, thank you for this. I think one of your old comments was actually where I first got the word ‘holistic’ in regard to L.O.V.E.’s approach to veganism, so thanks for that, too! (If it was someone else’s comment, I apologize..)
In this comment, you seem to be making all kinds of interesting connections. I’ll admit that some of them went over my head. I want to read over this a couple more times.
I’ve been thinking a lot about epistemology lately–mostly philosophical skepticism–but haven’t connected it to my veganism quite as directly as you seem to be here.
thanks for adding to the conversation!
steve
about 4 months ago
aiko,
Your appeal to epistemology begs the question: Why is the entrenchment of animal exploitation of any ethical concern? You seem to be aware of this problem, however, because you then mention the necessity of ontology, which arranges beings: in the moral community/outside our sphere of concern. This does necessarily create a hierarchy where inclusion is based on certain criteria. However, this cannot be avoided because it is the first premise for theorizing.
Your epistemological approach is derived from the posited ontology. Feminist epistemologies are situated, but this is a reflection of ontologies that view subjectivity, for example, as relational, embedded, deeply connected. As opposed to liberal ontologies that posit the atomistic, highly rational, egoist self. Liberal epistemological approaches then quantify the world through abstraction and universalism.
So to return to your argument, you need to first posit and defend the proposition that sentient beings are members of the moral community. What form your particular ontology takes is subjective: you may view things far more relational than others and this manifests as a care perspective, while others take on a more distant perspective that engenders a rights discourse, and this will all be related to your epistemological perspective. Whatever it may be, you first have to defend the why? of the matter. So your dualism here doesn’t follow.
In the end, I think it’s clear that the first premise, this “Why are sentient beings of interest to us?”, is because they can be harmed. Therefore, it seems to become an empirical matter to some degree. What methods most efficaciously prevent harm? Steven’s argument is that welfare campaigns fail to do this because of the underlying paradigms that necessarily result in harm to nonhuman animals. This was his dispute with the triage metaphor.
But it isn’t that welfare campaigns only seek to prevent suffering, as opposed to “oppression.” That’s not the real dispute. The badness of harm seems to be the catalyst for all of this; it becomes a question of means to ending this harm (i.e., ending oppression of the kind that justifies this harm).
Steven,
Respectfully, I don’t think you’ve responded to the challenge put forward by those who pursue welfare reform or as Elaine argued, try to prevent the most harm. That is necessarily an empirical matter. You need to prove that Elaine’s method doesn’t go to challenge sources of harm. You seem to rely on a philosophical slide: from exploitation (i.e., harm) to oppression. But these are one and the same.
about 4 months ago
Alex, thank you for your analysis of my arguments. You bring up some good points/questions that I will really have to think about, and I know I need to study more in-depth about ontology/epistemology.
steve, check out that book by Carol J. Adams for an introduction to the connections between epistemology and veganism. And thanks for the Wiki link – I hadn’t heard of philosophical skepticism before.
about 4 months ago
alex, thanks for adding to this conversation. I didn’t understand everything you wrote, but I interpret your main point like this: You believe that the underlying reason exploitation and oppression are worth opposing is because they cause harm; therefore, you believe that debates about which approach to take should be based on which approach reduces the most harm; finally, you don’t believe that I (or aiko) have proven that a holistic approach reduces more harm than a “practical vegan” approach.
Instead of debating this point, I want to emphasize that L.O.V.E. was formed around the single goal of achieving liberation for all beings. I want to emphasize that I used the conditional phrase, “if our goal is liberation for all beings,” in this blog post to indicate that my solutions are not necessarily for everyone–rather, they are for people like me who want to end oppression. Lastly, I want to emphasize that veganism as a movement was originally started with the expressed goal of ending the exploitation of animals.
Your comment seems to suggest that we ‘need’ to defend our goal. But I don’t think we all necessarily have the same motives or ideas behind our goal. For me, veganism comes as a reaction to strong feelings that I have against hierarchy, against forcing others to do things, against controlling others, against exploiting others. Do I feel this aversion because those things cause ‘harm’? I don’t know. But I know I feel strongly enough about them that I want to stop them. I know that I want to be part of the movement to end them. I know what my goal is.
Do you see what I mean? When I first shifted from an anti-suffering to an anti-oppression perspective, this was confusing to me. I said, “What? We aren’t trying to prove the absolute truth of our belief with an ethical theory?” Eventually I came to believe that it was naive to think I could obtain absolute truth in the first place, and I came to notice that my desire for absolute truth seemed to stem from a desire to coerce people into agreeing with me, to wield some kind of power. My understanding is now a lot more open. I feel like I can be honest and open about what I believe without needing to nervously defend it with theories that are shaky at best.
thanks so much for joining in on this!
-steve
about 4 months ago
Steven, your post provides an excellent template for those wishing to eradicate exploitation at its roots. As light dispels and displaces darkness, this full exposition of the workings of speciestism, illustrates the workings of exploitation. All who wish to totally eradicate all of the ‘isms’ and ‘ists’ from their thoughts and actions will benefit from this exposition. Each individual, must wrestle with the economics of trying to satisfy unlimited needs with limited time and resources on their part. Naturally, some will tackle everything at once whereas others will deal with that directly in their path. Fortunately L.O.V.E. welcomes all sincere endeavors while acting as a standard bearer for all. Thanks for the template.
about 4 months ago
harry, thanks for this!
I’m glad you perceive L.O.V.E. as welcoming all. I sometimes worry after I post on these kinds of subjects: “Am I just feeding a battle between welfarists & abolitionists? Is battling really what I’m here for?”
I always seem to come back to the belief that criticism is healthy and that criticism is not incompatible with respect.
steve
about 4 months ago
Steven,
Let me clarify briefly. My argument essentially takes this form. We strongly hold the principle that causing harm is bad; this is perhaps basic in moral philosophy. Our various prejudices have manifested as exploitation, hierarchies defined around the exclusion of certain groups, and many other out-grouping scenarios. Each is based on a refusal to extend the “harm principle” to these groups for erroneous reasons. Therefore, achieving liberation, which is indeed my goal, is the inclusion of nonhuman animals in the moral community. That is to say, covering all beings who are capable of being harmed by the “harm principle” as a matter of basic morality. So I’m in complete agreement with your goal, and you need not defend it.
My point is simpler. Statements such as “I seek liberation” is disembodied and abstract. I want to clarify your point: What is liberation? Well, it is the inclusion of nonhuman animals in the moral community, or more fundamentally perhaps, the eradication of prejudice.
Even Carol Adams, who is brilliant, gets confronted with this problem. She needs some deontological core, what aiko called “ontology,” as a first premise. Adams needs to first establish why I should consider any beings under the rubric of “care.” The reason is this: because they can be harmed.
To your final point, I never claimed to defend “objective” morality or absolute truth. Indeed, I think these kinds of arguments are metaphysically untenable. My point here is that it doesn’t matter if it’s subjective or objective. We hold the principle that causing harm is bad so strongly, whether it can be proven objectively or not, that it is actionable.
I write about these things sometimes:
http://thatvegangirl.com/
I actually just wrote a post responding to your criticism of “triage.”
about 4 months ago
Alex, you’re saying that liberation means extending the ‘harm principle’ to nonhuman animals, but I don’t think this is what ‘liberation’ means for me.
Your comments so far haven’t seemed to reflect any consideration of power. Hierarchy, as I understand it, is not just “out-grouping.” Hierarchy means some individual or group has power over another individual or group. There’s a limitation set on an individual’s or a group’s actions because some other individual or group has power over them. I am against those power imbalances, regardless of whether it causes anything further.
Ida at The Vegan Ideal has written about this issue, explaining that “equal consideration of interests” is not what liberation is about. It has more to do with power and, perhaps, freedom, respect, or acceptance:
http://veganideal.org/content/assimilationist-appropriation-liberation
–An earlier version of this comment included a more personal note about ‘moral philosophy’ in general, but I decided I’d rather not take the conversation in that direction (refer to another post of mine if you’re interested in it). Instead I’d like to re-emphasize what I wrote before, clarified by what I just added about liberation:
We are a movement to end oppression and achieve liberation for all beings. Because various members in this movement may have different underlying motivations for that goal, I don’t think it’s fair or accurate to reduce that goal to preventing harm, as if it’s true for all of us. For some (you included), the motivation to achieve liberation or end oppression may be, ultimately, to prevent harm. For others, the core motivation may be something else, or they might not know exactly what is behind it yet.
The debate you seem to be looking for is over which approach, holistic veganism or ‘practical’ veganism, more effectively prevents harm. But that kind of debate only seems relevant to people who agree that the ultimate goal is to prevent harm. Like I stated above, not everybody who wants to end oppression agrees with that or knows whether they agree with that. I think a lot of people are tricked into believing that their ultimate goal is preventing harm, because that’s what the organizations and philosophers of AR and animal welfare groups tell them. For example, the old VO front page used to say something like this: “Whether going vegan or reducing our meat consumption, our choices are a means to an end: reducing suffering.” The problem is, that’s not necessarily true for all of us. L.O.V.E. was largely formed around the experiences of 4 people who were came to be convinced that their veganism was reducible to “preventing suffering” but later came to realize that it wasn’t. We all came to feel like there was something beyond that, something outside of that. Certain things felt wrong that didn’t necessarily cause suffering.
My objective with this post was to illustrate that holistic veganism seems more effective than ‘practical’ veganism at ending oppression, since that is our agreed-upon goal at L.O.V.E. My goal was not to prove that it reduces the most harm, since that is not our agree-upon, deepest, ultimate goal.
steve
about 4 months ago
Steven,
I accept your proposition that my articulation of “liberation” fails to address power imbalances, latent and manifest privilege, and the underlying rationalizations that justifies this. However, you, like aiko, Ida of “The Vegan Ideal,” and those in the care tradition, are assuming that nonhuman animals are members of the moral community from the outset.
Your articulation of liberation and the problems with my initial version is only applicable if the beings in question, whom you are liberating, are assumed to count, ethically, in these decisions. The question that needs to be answered is why, in our consideration of power, are we considering nonhuman animals at all? The reason is because they are members of the community of beings whose interests, desires, life, etc. are ethically actionable.
Why, Steven, does it matter that we inflict violence on nonhuman animals? Any answer that says it does matter assumes some principle that covers nonhuman animals. That principle is the “harm principle.” Therefore, you seem to be dealing with scope — How do we treat members of the moral community — while I’m dealing with the far more basic and fundamentally important question as it pertains to nonhuman animals today, and that is, Why aren’t nonhuman animals in that community?
So I am in agreement with you and Ida and aiko on many fronts, I am simply addressing what needs to be addressed now, and that’s inclusion in the moral community or Ethics. That’s what I mean by liberation for nonhuman animals, and it wouldn’t apply to liberation for human animals, which deals with scope, not inclusion.
about 4 months ago
alex, you write:
“Why, Steven, does it matter that we inflict violence on nonhuman animals? Any answer that says it does matter assumes some principle that covers nonhuman animals.”
It don’t think we necessarily assume any principle if we are simply reacting to how we feel.
Maybe the disconnect here is that you say it “matters” to inflict violence on nonhuman animals. I don’t say it “matters.” I say that I have some bad feeling when it happens, and I react to that feeling and want to start a movement.
Some people may say it “matters” in some intellectual sense, but I’m not interested in that, and I don’t think that’s the business of veganism as a movement. The vegan movement exists–was created–to achieve a certain goal. To question that goal is to question the movement. Some utilitarians have done that and, in effect, co-opted veganism, trying to make it into something else. You may find some value in that activity. For me, I like the goal of ‘end oppression’; it aligns a lot more with my honest feelings than ‘prevent harm.’
I’m almost certain now there is an irreparable disconnect between us due to core differences in our understandings of ‘ethics.’ I am something of a philosophical skeptic and tend to resist any claim of ‘truth.’ At this point in my life, I am not sure whether I believe in ‘ethics’ at all. I think people are free to do what they want. This is something of a personal note and beside the point, but it may help explain why I resist your argument so strongly.
The ‘point’ here is that the agree-upon original goal of veganism and of L.O.V.E. is to end oppression. If the real, deeper goal for you is actually ‘preventing harm,’ not ‘ending oppression,’ then you might personally find more satisfaction in other movements.
warmly,
steve
about 4 months ago
Steven,
Your negative reaction to violence is itself the principle that you are acting on. Feminist ethicists have argued this. The emotive/intellectual dualism is erroneous. A “principle” in this instance is merely a “reason for acting.”
The emotive element only becomes actionable, however, when applied coherently. In this case, anti-violence only makes sense if you are discussing the kinds of beings who can be harmed; who have an interest in not being harmed. Likewise with ‘ending oppression’. That is incoherent unless it is guided by an ontology that groups: these beings can be exploited because this is what I mean by exploitation. Again, then, it seems that capacity to be harmed is intrinsically connected to being exploited. Therefore, the “goal” of veganism is intrinsically connected to harm.
Ending or reducing harm for you is simply not far enough. I agree. Liberation beyond this follows, however, only from the initial inclusion in Ethics, the moral community, the group of beings who we should be reasoning about at all, etc. And that’s the principled element.
In fact, you don’t believe people are free to do what they want. Why are you advocating veganism? How can you a) believe that exploitation should end and b) that people are free to do as they please, that is, to exploit people? It doesn’t follow unless, again, you assume, from the outset, some principled limit. You can call these emotive, I certainly wouldn’t disagree because as I stated before the metaphysical claims of objectivism are tenuous.
about 4 months ago
Given the responses, I don’t think that I made myself clear. What I mean by triage is simply prioritizing. For me, I prioritize habits over beliefs. I don’t care what you think (the animals don’t either); I care what you do.
Thus, I’m more interested in how vegan than why vegan.
And thus, my decision that there are a number of sufficient reasons for veganism yet no necessary ones. Veganism is an action, a lifestyle, NOT one particular mindset or philosophy.
about 4 months ago
Elaine, I do apologize for the confusion here. I may have wrongly lumped you in with people who prioritize certain species over other species. And of course, the conversation has shot off in other directions since your initial comment.
I would question your statement that veganism is not a philosophy or a mindset. My understanding is that veganism is basically a goal: to achieve liberation for all animals. In service of this goal, we undertake certain actions (vegetarian diet, boycotting leather/fur/silk, boycotting circuses/zoos/etc). I know that today many people understand veganism as a lifestyle or set of actions, but to be fair I don’t think this was the original intention of the Vegan Society, and I don’t think it’s my intention, either.
thanks for contributing, again, elaine,
steve
about 4 months ago
Re. “boycotting leather/fur/silk, boycotting circuses/zoos/etc”
Do you wear human skin?
If not, do you consider that a boycott?
about 4 months ago
Alex,
I don’t believe that exploitation “should” end. I want exploitation to end. That is all. I wrote about this last December.
I apologize if I seem to be deliberately uncooperative. I want to stay open to your argument, but this has been a tiring exchange; it has stirred up some painful memories/feelings from my experience in 2008 with VO, and your tone has been irritating because you keep asserting things as if you know they are true (“In fact, you don’t believe people are free to do what they want”).
about 4 months ago
Steven,
The fact that you “want exploitation to end” implies that you believe exploitation is problematic. Or else why would you want it to end? The “should” is the implied ethical content that I simply assert, without fear of extending myself too far. It follows that you don’t believe people should be free to do as they want, because of the implied ethical restraint. Otherwise, this discourse would be incoherent.
Consider your conception of love. Why do you want to “embody love,” if you weren’t implying a disapproval of the alternative: not-love? Why is non-violent vegan activism to be preferred over violence? Because you accept the proposition that violence is ethically bad.
Steven, there is a distinction here between your implicit ethical undertones (e.g. principles, emotion, etc.) and your philosophical slide to objectivism or suggesting a principle that universally holds (i.e., “We must stop animal exploitation”). I adhere to the former sort as I’ve stated, just as you do. However, I simply assert it plainly because I think that’s the most tenable ethical position. It isn’t “truth” or universal; it’s far more pragmatic than that.
But we have to get back to the crux of this conversation. You seem to be skipping steps. The first step is establishing that nonhuman animals count, and addressing the reasons that we have refused to include them in moral reasoning. The second is scope of the kind you describe in your conception of “liberation.” Both are key, intrinsic elements to “veganism” as I understand it.
about 4 months ago
Alex, you keep trying to tell me what I believe. I don’t appreciate that, especially since it seems like you don’t understand. Respectfully, this will probably be my last response.
I am not sure in a strict sense whether “nonhuman animals count” because I am not sure in a strict sense whether anyone “counts.” The closest description I’ve found to what I currently feel in regard to ethics is Pyrrhonian moral skepticism.
I do not accept the proposition that violence “is” “morally” “bad.”
I do things–like being vegan–because I’m alive and I have to do something. To not do anything is still to do something. So I do what makes the most sense to me.
But I don’t pretend that I “know” anything. I don’t pretend like anything “is” “bad” or “is” “good,” even in a “subjective” or “relative” sense. I feel like it’s a little absurd to actually believe with any conviction the values that we humans place on phenomena in the universe. A thing happens. We think it is “good” or “bad.” Why? A thing happened. And yet, people are willing to kill each other over it because they think it was “good” or “bad.” Have you read about the “is-ought problem”?
There is a practical level at which I’ll say “That’s good,” based on some vague feeling, but that level of casual understanding doesn’t seem appropriate if we’re having a philosophical conversation, if we’re establishing “principles” on which we’re going to base our lives (ethics), or especially if we’re establishing principles with which we’re going to judge or govern other people’s lives.
I’d maybe be more comfortable discussing these ideas with you at that casual level if it was clear to me that you understood and acknowledged the speculation involved in such a discussion. Your tone here and on your blog, however, suggests to me that you do believe in ethical obligation–that you do judge other people for their “unethical” actions–that you do take ethics seriously. I’m not interested in encouraging that kind of conviction.
A lot of people, including vegans here at L.O.V.E., might find some value in some idea of ethics–especially if they’re comfortable with having faith in some assumption (belief in a religion or some ‘golden rule’ etc)–but in a strict sense, at this point in my life, I personally doubt whether anything in the whole field of moral philosophy is actually “sound,” and I don’t feel like there’s any reason to pretend otherwise.
about 4 months ago
Steven,
You continue to refer to assumptions (you cite religion, “truth,” the golden rule) as though they are the foundation(s) from which my conclusions are derived. This seems to set-up a straw man of my argument, which you easily criticize as speculative (i.e., not adhering to the assumptions you attributed to my argument to begin with).
As I’ve continuously argued, I don’t accept those assumptions as axiomatic (as in the Kantian sense) or objective. My argument here, and at That Vegan Girl, is far simpler because it is derived from propositions (namely, about the badness of harm and death) that we generally hold. Now that’s an empirical claim, but it has sufficient evidence to be commonsensical. So to the issue of “soundness,” I don’t assume Ethics to be “sound” in the rationalistic Kantian model, or any other method that attempt to produce universalistic truths. That’s the straw man you have set-up that I reject.
“Sound” in the strictly logical sense is my method of choice. We seem to accept a proposition A and therefore what follows, logically, is B. This is the method I employed to criticize your assertion that you believe people can do what they choose. It seems that you have set-up implied limits to people’s actions based on how violence makes you feel or a personal repulsion to exploitation. These feelings aren’t objective, however, they act as the kinds of propositions I am concerned with Steven. I use “morally bad” as a short-hand, as I’ve done throughout this thread. It is you who imposes meaning on the phrase.
There isn’t anything in my argument that should be construed as trying to get over the is/ought gap because I don’t make the relevant kinds of inferences. I’m going from value propositions to value propositions, which follows.
I would hate to end our discussion because it’s quite interesting. I am simply fascinated with your argument.
Best,
Alex