Philosophical Vegan Forum

As VeganAtheist said, consistency can be important to avoid confusing people.

I don't think it has to be absolute, but if there are exceptions, they just need to be clear.

If you have an exception for vegetarian but not vegan food items that somebody made for you who didn't know you were vegan, that's fine, but just make sure to explain that clearly to people when it happens so they understand why you're making the exception, and that vegans don't make a habit of doing that, but it's a choice on your part and only for this particular situation.

And what's better: tit for tat. Ask them to go vegan for a day for you to make up for the dairy or whatever that's in the product, so the karmic scales can be balanced and you don't feel bad. They might bargain you down to one meal, but it probably does more good than not eating it.

I don't think the trace additives are as important, and that is, I agree with PETA's stance on the matter:

http://www.peta.org/living/food/making- ... ucts-food/

It is very important to present a consistent and rational image for people so they can understand it, but at the same time, it needs to be doable, and not violate people's sense of social standards to the point people would feel uncomfortable doing it.

If somebody thought "Oh, I could never go vegan, because if that situation happened to me I wouldn't know what to do" then that's a problem.
If you present yourself as flexible in unusual and 'extreme' situations like that, it can make veganism seem more attainable to more people- as long as you make clear the rules, so that people don't get the wrong idea or abuse them later.

cufflink wrote: I'm all for consistency. But it seems like a false dichotomy to imply there are only two possibilities: either your actions are 100% consistent with your beliefs at all times, with no exceptions whatsoever, or you're a hypocrite. Isn't a hypocrite someone whose actions consistently depart from his/her stated beliefs? If A's actions are inconsistent 80% of the time, and B's are inconsistent 0.01% of the time, are they both hypocrites?

Hypocrisy is claiming to hold beliefs that you don't actually hold. It's a form of dishonesty.

Your actions can be at odds with your beliefs, as long as you feel bad about it.

E.g. an addict may sing the praises of sobriety, and strive for it, but fall off the wagon more often than not.
A smoker can criticize smoking, as long as they're trying to quit.

However, if somebody does something unapologetically, their actions can be evidence of insincere beliefs.

You didn't act against your beliefs, though. You just value the interpersonal element, and giving your neighbor a more workable understanding of veganism than personal purity.

I would recommend you ask them to eat a vegan meal to help you make up for the animal products in that one. Most people can understand that concept pretty well. And it will introduce them to more vegan food.

cufflink wrote: Along these lines, what's the feeling on this board about Peter Singer and his "Paris exemption"? And do most people here lean towards protectionism or abolitionism?

I consider the notion as it comes off as largely hedonistic and immoral.
Eating animal products while in Paris has no utility- the very use of "Paris" is an appeal to opulence: the meal wouldn't be a practical one, but an indulgence. There are plenty of vegan foods to find in Paris, or anywhere else.

The part I agree with is that if you literally can not find vegan food, and you haven't eaten all day, then going for vegetarian could be OK. I just can't see that as something that would realistically ever happen. It's only true to the extent that if you can't find any food, cannibalism is an option. But I feel like that should be a given, and you don't need a special exemption for it.

If there's a reason to eat non-vegan, it's due to the actual utility of the act, and not to indulge.

McDougall recommends something similar: eat anything on holidays, eat vegetarian the rest of the year. But his is a matter of nutrition, where cheating now and then isn't necessarily a problem, as long as it's infrequent. From a moral perspective, there's no justification to do it. And from a practical perspective, it's a literal slippery slope- anything can become a special occasion.

"they don't mind if other people eat animals"

This is bugging me too. Then they must not care much about animals, if they only care about their own actions, but it could just be a different strategy of "converting" people to veganism too. I was watching Kathy Freston on Oprah recently, and she kept repeating that she was a vegan for herself, saying "for me, this is for me! It doesn't feel right in my soul.". I guess the idea is that more people are listening to what gives them feel better (carrot), than allow themselves to feel guilty by some vegans telling them how cruel they are (stick). People react differently.

One should not follow what one does not understand.

dan1073 wrote:One should not follow what one does not understand.

Some people don't understand anything, though. And some things are very hard to understand for most people, and yet reasonable to believe they are true.

I would say, one should strive to understand what one follows.

dan1073 wrote:One should not follow what one does not understand.

What does this refer to? Not my post I hope.

Anon0045 wrote:

dan1073 wrote:One should not follow what one does not understand.

What does this refer to? Not my post I hope.

No, I think he was just saying generally, that people who don't understand Veganism shouldn't be vegan. People who don't know a political party's platform shouldn't belong to the party. People who haven't at least read the Bible shouldn't be Christian, etc.

I don't agree, though. I'd rather they were vegan than not- although it's much better if they understand the philosophy behind it than if they are just doing it as a fad or whim.

I think any political party would say the same thing- they'd rather more members to support them, even if those members are ignorant.

Any religion would say the same too- they want more member, even if those members are ignorant.

I think most people are probably always going to be ignorant. It's a question of whether superficial support has value, and I think it does (although it's not as valuable as real understanding).

brimstoneSalad wrote:

Anon0045 wrote:

dan1073 wrote:One should not follow what one does not understand.

What does this refer to? Not my post I hope.

No, I think he was just saying generally, that people who don't understand Veganism shouldn't be vegan. People who don't know a political party's platform shouldn't belong to the party. People who haven't at least read the Bible shouldn't be Christian, etc.

I don't agree, though. I'd rather they were vegan than not- although it's much better if they understand the philosophy behind it than if they are just doing it as a fad or whim.

I think any political party would say the same thing- they'd rather more members to support them, even if those members are ignorant.

Any religion would say the same too- they want more member, even if those members are ignorant.

I think most people are probably always going to be ignorant. It's a question of whether superficial support has value, and I think it does (although it's not as valuable as real understanding).

Thanks for clearing up any confusion with my previous comment.

brimstoneSalad wrote: No, I think he was just saying generally, that people who don't understand Veganism shouldn't be vegan. People who don't know a political party's platform shouldn't belong to the party. People who haven't at least read the Bible shouldn't be Christian, etc.

I don't agree, though. I'd rather they were vegan than not- although it's much better if they understand the philosophy behind it than if they are just doing it as a fad or whim.

I think any political party would say the same thing- they'd rather more members to support them, even if those members are ignorant.

Any religion would say the same too- they want more member, even if those members are ignorant.

I think most people are probably always going to be ignorant. It's a question of whether superficial support has value, and I think it does (although it's not as valuable as real understanding).

I thought for a moment that maybe dan1073 thought I don't know what veganism is about, and being vegan for one's own sake is what veganism is all about.

Good points by the way, I agree. Getting the results you want is more important than being a perfectionist and getting less.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I think any political party would say the same thing- they'd rather more members to support them, even if those members are ignorant.

I view the ignorance of the public as the weakness of democracy. It can be very dangerous (just look at the Nazi party). It's sad how many people still vote on parties that say populistic (xenophobic) things but don't and can't do anything about it, still making them big. A lot of people don't know what they are really voting for. Don't get me wrong, I do think democracy is the best form of government, but it has some serious weaknesses that you have to accept.