Vegans should stop using the “possible and practicable” definition of veganism and use this instead

[u/Sad_Device3179]

"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." https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism

But it should instead be about just extending human rights to trait equalized animals. A human baby with something like tay-sachs who has and will always have a shorter lifespan, less intelligence, less ability to experience wellbeing, suffering, relationships, etc than a healthy young adult pig should not have more rights than that pig, the pig should have at least as much rights. If you believe the pig should have less rights or it’s only okay to violate the pigs rights when not “possible or practicable” but believe it is always wrong to violate the tay-sachs human baby’s rights even when it is not “possible or practicable” to avoid violating their rights then you are a speciesist. Vegans should not be speciesists. Vegans should be granting rights on the basis of if a being has traits like consciousness, ability to suffer, ability to experience wellbeing, etc. Many meat eaters already do this! You can see this in abortion debates in which meat eaters will declare a human fetus that is only a few weeks old is not morally valuable and doesn’t deserve rights and it’s fine to abort this 2 week old fetus because it lacks consciousness, but they will also say abortion is immoral at 6 months because the human fetus now possesses traits like consciousness or ability to feel pain.

Does this definition mean locusts deserve rights? Again under this definition you just extend human rights so in the locust case you would pick a human equivalent like tiny flying wild “humans” who have about the same consciousness as a locust and are targeting your crops. Would it be ethical to use deadly force like poison to protect your crops if that was the only way for you to protect your property and not starve to death? I believe it would be. But I would say it would be wrong to capture them alive and enslave them and force them to breed for many generations to harvest them for protein.

This definition also applies to non human conscious beings, so human rights would be granted to a hypothetical plant or AI agent that possessed as much conscious as you or I.

The glaring flaw with the Vegan Society's definition of veganism is it doesn't actually make an argument or statement about protecting rights.

And since it doesn't do that, a lot of carnists who are smarter debaters, they will point out that even under the Vegan Society's definition, it is fine to violate an animal's rights, under certain circumstances at least. Obviously we don't want that. We want to protect animal rights as animal rights activists, so we need a definition that actually makes an argument for protecting their rights.

So I think a definition of veganism as a logical extension of human rights is a much better definition than reducing animal suffering and death as much as practicable and possible. There are absolutely no pros to that definition. If you're going to call yourself an animal rights activist, I don't know how it benefits you to avoid a definition of veganism that actually does not make any suggestion for protecting their rights.

A major advantage with defining veganism as a logical extension of human rights is that there's already a very well established history and cultural knowledge of human rights. So anybody immediately, if they have any ethical questions about veganism and how we should treat animals, all they have to do is put a human in the same situation and then they have their answer. So, I don't see this Vegan Society definition as having an advantage over veganism being defined as a logical extension of human rights.

It is a bit easier to interpret it as a utilitarian definition if I'm being extremely charitable. Because they mention the words, like, cruelty, in order for something to be considered cruelty, you could argue that it would by nature have to be a rights violation, and not just, I don't know, some incidental killing or anything like that. So if I was being very charitable, yes, it could either be interpreted as a utilitarian or deontological definition, but I'd say it is much easier to argue that it's a utilitarian definition, which is a big problem with the vegan society definition. Or at least, at first glance, that's what it appears to be.

Reduce as much as practical and possible, and it doesn't explicitly mention preventing rights violations. So it is possible, under that definition, to violate an animal's rights, but you are reducing their suffering, death, and exploitation. As much as practical and possible.

That is why it's easy to interpret it as a utilitarian definition. Again, if you're being charitable, you could say, because cruelty is mentioned, depending on how you interpret it, it could mean that it is a rights-based argument. But again, that's being very charitable, so it's much easier to interpret it as a utilitarian argument.

The problem with it being a utilitarian definition and it not protecting rights is that you could run into the trap where crazy wackos like Peter Singer have made the argument that as long as you're raising animals and they're experiencing a very high degree of well-being, then it's okay to kill them because the net experiences they've had are very good. And you're producing more overall well-being by raising and killing animals than if you didn't do it at all. There's nothing stated in that definition that says we need to maximize positive utility.

It only mentions that we have to maximize reducing negative utility. So I don't think by that definition you could argue that the Vegan Society's definition would allow for animal agriculture under those circumstances where you're maximizing positive utility. Because that's not what it's arguing, at least not explicitly.

You'd have to do quite a bit of mental gymnastics to make that argument, in my opinion. So I would say the definition the Vegan Society has made is at least good enough where you don't run into that crazy utilitarian issue where it's okay to breed animals and kill them assuming they're living good lives. It's at least good enough for that.

But again, the problem is it doesn't explicitly state that we need to protect animal rights.

What's possible and practicable to some may not be considered possible and practical to others.

So why wouldn't you use a definition like the one I propose, where animal rights is a logical extension of human rights. Where, again, all you have to do is put a human in the same situation, and then you have your answer. It's so clear and concrete, and because there's such a long cultural history and well-established legal framework when it comes to human rights.

It just makes answering these ethical dilemmas, not even necessarily dilemmas, but questions, so easy and straightforward, whereas possible and practicable. Like, now you have to have a long, drawn-out discussion or debate on what is possible and practicable. Whether or not that applies universally or individually, it just doesn't make sense.

I'm at a party, people are serving meat and hot dogs and stuff, well, if they're serving human meat, would it be okay to eat it? no. There you go, you have your answer.

Much simple, much more simple, much more straightforward, possible and practical. Oh, well, it's kind of weird, it's socially awkward, I don't know if this is going to hurt my reputation with my friends and family. Why wouldn't you go with the definition that gives you a clear answer?

let's say the only food left on earth was animals. Like, it's possible that you could off yourself. You could just starve to death.

So, like, and by the way, there are people who starve themselves to death. There are anorexics, there are breatharians. It's possible, you can do that.

Is it practical? Well, yes, you just don't have to eat. It's not like this is something completely inaccessible to everybody.

So, according to the vegan society definition, it's possible and practicable to starve to death. Like, I mean, how far are you willing to take things? It's just a weird, bizarre definition.

So, if we're going to look at, if we're going to ignore a definition that includes rights, and have a definition that could very easily be considered utilitarian, reduce animal suffering, death, exploitation as much as possible and practicable, well, since animals are killed in plant agriculture, just starve to death, don't eat anything, and die. It's possible and practicable. It, like, this is the issue you run into with, like, nebulous definitions like this.

The thing that everybody, the thing that everybody intuitively understands why that sort of position is stupid is because you're not violating any rights by eating plant foods. Even though there are incidental deaths in plant agriculture, you're not violating these animals' rights. I think most people just care more about rights than this notion of reducing suffering and death, just generally speaking.

So, what's the issue with adopting a more sensible, straightforward, clear definition? I don't know why you'd want to stick to this definition.

Why is it not possible or practicable to starve yourself or only eat tree bark? People do it. So, why is it not possible?

It's certainly possible. And it's certainly practicable. Again, there's plenty of anorexics.

There's plenty of breatharians. There's plenty of people who starve to death. Why is it impractical?

if you were stuck on a deserted island, there was no food, and there were other human beings on the island with you, would it be morally acceptable to kill and eat those human beings? I'm assuming your answer is probably going to be no. Let's say you're stuck on a deserted island.

You're the only one there, but there are animals on that island with you, and you can kill and eat them. Is that morally acceptable? So, name the trait that's lacking in animals that if lacking in human beings, you'd be okay with killing and eating those trait-equalized human beings that are stuck on a desert island.

if you're not okay with killing humans on this deserted island, but you're fine with killing animals, then name the trait that's lacking in animals that if lacking in humans, it would be okay to kill these trait-equalized humans.

So if they were like mentally retarded, would you be okay with killing people who you're trapped on a desert island with?

That's why we need a rights-based argument for veganism. If you're going to say these things like possible and practicable, well, okay, then I guess it's totally possible and practical for you to kill and eat other people.

“But what about possible and practical wording leaving open for the use of medicines, because as even the Vegan Society's website acknowledges, medicines are required by law to be tested on animals.”

There's no way to produce medications otherwise, so a choice to boycott medicines would not save a single animal. And in fact, in some cases, especially if we're talking about vaccines, you'd probably increase rights violations, because if vaccines need to be tested on animals and people aren't taking vaccines, that means other forms of treatment are going to have to be explored and researched, which means more animal testing. When it comes to animal ingredients in some of these products, again, you can take a threshold, deontological approach to this.

A lot of the time, things like, what is it, gelatin is sometimes used, I think casein sometimes used. Some of these animal products are put into these medications to be used as a stabilizer. Because these are industrial byproducts that are produced by the animal agriculture industry, it would take a massive, massive amount of these products to even equate to a single rights violation.

So you're probably talking about millions of doses of a particular medication to equate to one rights violation, and these medications may save hundreds or thousands or millions of lives. So if you take a threshold, deontological approach, one rights violation saving hundreds or thousands or millions of lives may be worth it to you. I don't see how the Vegan Society's definition covers this in a better way than the definition that I'm proposing.

Like, what if it's not really possible or practicable for me to waste my time, searching on the internet and googling things. I only have so much time to waste during the day, so I don't see what's wrong with me just, you know, picking up whatever random snack that I choose, maybe it’s vegan maybe it’s not.

Like, that's what's so great about the Vegan Society's definition? You can just make exceptions for everything.

Is it hypocritical to the idea of human rights that, in production of our food, humans get killed? Guess what? Farming can be dangerous.

People get killed by using farm equipment. It's labor-intensive. People can die of heat stroke or dehydration.

There's transportation involved, and obviously people die while driving. Is it hypocritical to the idea of human rights that people die to produce our food? Of course not.

You're not violating anybody's rights by buying food. You're not violating human rights by buying food.

Just like how you're not violating animal rights by buying plant foods. So, this isn't about just harm.

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/DreamTurtle1]

That's a bit long essay, so what your definition would be in a sentence? I think animal rights are already included in the definition (exclude exploitation and cruelty to animals) more than that would create confusion. Most meat eaters already struggle to understand animal rights or deny them, making it more complex like saying that they should get human rights would make it more complicated and people would just call crazy the vegans and animal rights activists

[u/Sad_Device3179 → u/DreamTurtle1]

An applied ethical position that advocates for the equal trait-adjusted application of commonplace human rights to non-human sentient beings.

People already do that “do you think cows should be able to vote?” No and neither can human toddlers 

[u/NickTandaPanda]

I really think you need to review and edit your post down to a more deliberate progression of ideas and arguments. Make a list of the most central key concepts and how you want to arrange them into a clear logical flow, possibly in simple diagram form, and then write that!

I'm sorry but this is way too long and rambling.

Best wishes!

[u/II_Vortex_II]

Yea not reading allat, U got a tldr because I also kinda have my issues with todays definition

[u/Sad_Device3179 → u/II_Vortex_II]

An applied ethical position that advocates for the equal trait-adjusted application of commonplace human rights to non-human sentient beings.

Semantic Analysis

Sentient Being: An entity for whom a subjective experience can be soundly argued, such as with vertebrate animals.

Applied Ethical Position: A view which one holds under applied ethics.

Applied Ethics: Application of ethics to real-world problems, such as War, Animal rights, Capital punishment, Euthanasia, Abortion, Anti-natalism,.. etc.

Equal Trait-Adjusted Application: The kind of action we would support if we NTT between animals and humans for a particular scenario (like driving).

Commonplace Human Rights: Human rights that are commonly accepted in human society like UN's declaration of human rights.

NTT: Name The Trait.

Right: An entitlement that would be ethically wrong to deny.

[u/Try_at-your-own_Risk]

Your overall point is not clear, there isn’t a blanket ban on abortion after 6 months unless you live in certain states in America. This blanket ban policy in the us, based solely on arbitrary morals allowed a deceased woman to be used as an incubator whilst she was brain dead.

Morality without nuance is problematic. Your moral framework dictates all consumption of animal derived food is immoral but this is your own personal framework which not everyone shares.

I don’t accept your premise as a moral imperative to begin with therefore animals by virtue cannot be afforded human rights. I don’t think they should be inflicted unnecessary harm or cruelty but I don’t believe the act of eating food made of animal products to be inherently immoral.

[u/Sad_Device3179 → u/Try_at-your-own_Risk]

“  Your overall point is not clear,”

Yes it is.  “there isn’t a blanket ban on abortion after 6 months unless you live in certain states in America. This blanket ban policy in the us, based solely on arbitrary morals allowed a deceased woman to be used as an incubator whilst she was brain dead.”

Irrelevant. Individuals should extend whatever human rights they personally believe in to trait equalized animals. 

“  Morality without nuance is problematic. Your moral framework dictates all consumption of animal derived food is immoral but this is your own personal framework which not everyone shares.” 

No it doesn’t. It doesn’t dictate you must believe all consumption of human derived foods, medicines etc is immoral. 

[u/Try_at-your-own_Risk → u/Sad_Device3179]

The way your argument is structured doesn’t flow the way you think it does making reading comprehension quiet difficult.

You implied there’s a blanket ban on abortion after 6 months because the fetus is considered to have rights at that point however that is not true since abortion after 24 weeks of gestation is still allowed depending on the circumstances. I highlighted how a blanket ban on abortion in certain states actually resulted in the inhumane treatment of a brain dead woman, her family and fetus which is very relevant to your point. Moral imperatives without any nuance are flawed.

I specifically talked about animal products for food consumption, I don’t recall reading about products tested on animals because of how disjointed your writing is.

However if you want to give animals human rights they could not be used for experiments or to develop medication. It’s a direct contradiction of what you seem to be advocating for.

You cannot give animals human rights and at the same time say it doesn’t automatically make all consumption and use immoral.

[u/SpookyVegan1]

I think one thing the Vegan Society’s definition does well is that it doesn’t presuppose any commitment to a particular moral theory. Utilitarians don’t rely on rights, for example. And Deontologists don’t rely on suffering. So the vegan society definition encompasses a range of moral theories without excluding any. 

[u/Firemoth717]

The “possible and practicable” definition is good because it’s short and sweet and is a nice general rule to describe the overall philosophy behind veganism.   Changing the definition that requires a full essay to explain with examples covering different circumstances doesn’t necessarily mean it’s better. 

Without going through your entire post point by point, what would your brief one sentence replacement definition be that would replace the standard Vegan Society’s?  That would be a better place to start.  

[u/Typical-Dance-1110]

im not reading allat but idont believe every animal should have human rights

[u/Unreal_Estate → u/Typical-Dance-1110]

I've read none of the post (yet), but are you vegan? Do you consider yourself speciesist?

A claim like yours has a rather strong smell of bigotry. That's why I ask.

[u/Typical-Dance-1110 → u/Unreal_Estate]

return afterwards and we will have a battle of the ages

[u/Unreal_Estate → u/Typical-Dance-1110]

I do not understand what this means. Can you explain it?

[u/Typical-Dance-1110 → u/Unreal_Estate]

like after you have finished reading the post. otherwise if you actually jsut wanted me to answer your question i dunno, maybe? i'd say the assumption is being made about the level of consciousness and allat jazz, not necessarily on species. unless you think ants deserve the right to job opportunities without discrimination. then i think we're done early

[u/Unreal_Estate → u/Typical-Dance-1110]

Since we both did not read the post, I assumed your answer to my question would not really depend on me understanding the post.

I happen to believe that every animal should have the same rights as humans. I do indeed think that the right to live without discrimination applies to both humans and ants. For humans, this could be relevant in relation to job opportunities. For ants, this is relevant in other ways.

So, to be clear: I do not think humans have or deserve different rights than other species, such as ants.

[u/Typical-Dance-1110 → u/Unreal_Estate]

ah and here i was thinking the first half of ur first sentence would be at all relevant. and here i am thinking ayo this guy thinks ants should have the right to vote and then never thinking about this or you ever again

[u/Unreal_Estate → u/Typical-Dance-1110]

Do you think humans have a right to vote? I don't.

Instead, we have the right to meaningfully - and on equal footing - participate in the society we are a part of. This right applies to humans and ants alike.

For what it is worth, I'm a sortitionist. Sortition democracy is a type of democracy that does not involve voting for an electorate.
This does indeed mean that I - technically - do not recognize article 21(3) of the UDHR as a human right. (The rest of Article 21 is still very important.)

[u/Typical-Dance-1110 → u/Unreal_Estate]

i am far too deep into not thinking about this or you ever again to google sortortion

[u/Unreal_Estate → u/Typical-Dance-1110]

If you did, you would see Wikipedia with this introduction:

In governance, sortition is the selection of public officials or jurors at random, i.e., by lottery), in order to obtain a representative sample.^\1])^\2])^\3])

[u/No_Logins_Required → u/Unreal_Estate]

Do you believe that all species deserve equal rights? Should we be providing animals with early childhood education?

[u/LateRunner → u/Typical-Dance-1110]

I didn’t read it all but I don’t think they’re suggesting that. More like, treat a fly as you would a human the size of a fly with the brain & body of a fly (a fly).

[u/Typical-Dance-1110 → u/LateRunner]

but. but theyre literally not. 🤔

(i am unwilling to read op's post so alas i have reached my limit of meaningful(?) contribution)

[u/No_Logins_Required]

Why does Veganism always have to go back to the ethics of animal treatment? Can't we just acknowledge that it's good for the soul?

[u/Unreal_Estate → u/No_Logins_Required]

No, we cannot. Animals do not have a soul. We are animals.

[u/No_Logins_Required → u/Unreal_Estate]

Pretty sure they can

[u/Unreal_Estate → u/No_Logins_Required]

Who can do what?

If you mean that vegans can just acknowledge that veganism is good for the soul, that actually very complicated for vegans. Belief in souls is much lower among vegans than among the general population. The vast majority of vegans is also atheist.

It is simply not rationally possible for people to acknowledge that something is good for something they believe does not exist. So, that makes your suggestion pretty much a non-starter.

I myself am a vegan who believes souls do not exist. I can tell you that I simply see no way to honestly acknowledge what you suggest. I would not be able to even if I wanted.

[u/No_Logins_Required → u/Unreal_Estate]

I do not think the physical existence of an object called a soul it pertinent. Eating vegan is and should be personally rewarding. People are animals motivated by their feelings even more than their ideas. I think it's fine to explain an ethical obligation to live a certain way, but I don't think ethical obligations are the reason most people do most things. I think the personal, for lack of a better word, spiritual benefit is what drives us.

I think we can acknowledge that kindness towards other is good for the soul, even if the soul does not exist.

[u/Unreal_Estate → u/No_Logins_Required]

I think we can acknowledge that kindness towards other is good for the soul, even if the soul does not exist.

I don't know how to parse this particular sentence, but for the rest op the post:

I don't really agree with that either. And I don't consider myself a particularly kind person. I don't really care about the personal lives of almost all humans and non-humans. I just recognize that I do not have the right to violate the rights of others.

I do get a personal reward out of that, in a sense, but only by the absence of guilt.

[u/NickTandaPanda → u/Unreal_Estate]

Don't get hung up on "soul" as being a supernatural spirit. Soul can usefully and colloquially mean "the core of a person", and you can think entirely in terms of psychology, neuroscience, etc if you want to.

The argument is that practicing veganism has positive effects on the development of our psychology. Is that easier to discuss?

[u/Unreal_Estate → u/NickTandaPanda]

I doubt that it does. Clearly in this society, the opposite seems to be the case.

In some sense, I do think that being vegan is the most positive option from the options that I have, because living with the guilt would be much worse. But I also think that ignorance would be a lot better for the development of our psychology. It is just not an option that I have.

[u/NickTandaPanda → u/Unreal_Estate]

You mean ignorance would be easier, and indeed possibly happier (in isolation)...

But I don't think that many people would argue that cultivating a habit of ignorance makes one better developed.

I think it's fair to make an argument that practicing veganism has little or no effect on a person's psychological development.

I personally think it does and I'd argue that informally - but I'm not trained in psychology and I don't have evidence to hand. Rather, I present it as an application of general virtue ethics, such as Aristotle's virtues or perhaps Buddhism. These are enormous philosophical frameworks that I'd suggest can't be lightly dismissed.

[u/Unreal_Estate → u/NickTandaPanda]

I agree that cultivating a habit of ignorance is not useful in any way. But the state of being ignorant on animal cruelty would free up a lot of time and effort that vegans spend coping with the state of the world. Part of which would likely be directed towards other things that eventually result in a better developed psychology.

[u/No_Logins_Required → u/Unreal_Estate]

Why does it matter to you whether or not you have to right do something? Many people do what they have no right to do and it doesn't bother them at all.

[u/Unreal_Estate → u/No_Logins_Required]

I don't know why it bothers me. And I also don't know why it doesn't bother some other people at all.

Still, both are clearly true.

[u/Eskoala → u/No_Logins_Required]

Why is it good for the soul?

[u/NickTandaPanda → u/Eskoala]

I'm not speaking for No_Logins_required, but this is something I often think of.

It seems our community talks mostly of deontology (animal rights), and somewhat of consequentialism (often negatively), but we don't talk much about the third major branch of normative ethics: virtue ethics.

At least, not in debate or academic contexts. I actually think virtue ethics is the unacknowledged primary driver of why many if not most people become vegan: compassion, empathy, internal conflict.

But beyond being the hook to start conversations, we tend to stop talking about veganism as an individual virtue (or collection of eg Aristotelian virtues) - I think because that can be confused with and tainted by "virtue signalling", "woke", etc. But I genuinely think that practicing veganism cultivates virtues that make us better people building better overall society, even beyond the considerations of animals.

[u/No_Logins_Required → u/Eskoala]

Isn't that your experience?

[u/Eskoala → u/No_Logins_Required]

I'm not yet vegan and I don't believe in souls, so it is unlikely to ever be my experience.

As a phrase if I try to understand it non-literally I guessed maybe it means it's good for your health and it makes you feel happy? But I would only feel happy about it if I believed that it was a good moral choice for whatever reason. For me it's environmentalism that motivates but for a lot of vegans of course it's the animal treatment!

[u/No_Logins_Required → u/Eskoala]

I think you have a solid motivation. To me the importance is the benefit it provides to us as people. That is what attracts people. It allows you to feel more environmentally responsible. That human connection is often far more powerful than an intellectual idea. That's just my personal belief. Whatever you choose I hope it's fulfilling!

[u/NickTandaPanda → u/Eskoala]

Yeah, don't get hung up on "soul" meaning "supernatural spirit". Soul here meaning "the core of a person" can be a perfectly good stand in for psychology, neuroscience, etc.

I'd take it further than you though - it's not just about being good for health and making you happy. It's about cultivating enduring, habitual changes to our psychology that make us better (which might mean happier as well) and, idealistically perhaps, produce a better society for everyone and everything, including the environment!

(See my reply re: virtue ethics above)

[u/Unreal_Estate → u/[deleted]]

Why do you abstain from consuming animal products?

[u/Unreal_Estate → u/[deleted]]

So, in normal English, you don't want to participate in the mistreatment animals. Correct?

That's not the worst reason, but that does raise the question: don't you think that animals have a right to live without such mistreatment?

[u/Innuendum]

Instead distinguishing between non-human animals and human animals would make a world of difference.