Philosophical Vegan Forum

The dutch philosopher Erno Eskens listed four kinds of efforts one can make to change the situation of animals for the better. What I'm interested in is in which of these things you're participating yourself. The efforts are:
1. The Bandage: taking care of sick or abused animals.
2. The Law: change through political means, such as the Party for the Animals.
3. The Banner: you join an association dedicated to the animals, either passively through membership fees, or active through volunteering.
4. The Balaclava: participate in activities outside the law to stop violence against animals.
A fifth would be The Fork (which the philosopher Floris van den Berg added to the list), starting with what's on your plate and deciding not to eat animal products any longer.

***

I'll start with answering these points:
1. The Bandage: I currently don't have the money to take care of an animal. Also I'm away from home too often, and then there is nobody to look after him/her. I do see this one as an option somewhere in the future.
2. The Law: I don't think I want to become too active politically other than through voting. My voting behavior is seriously influenced by my position on animal ethics. I wouldn't vote on a party that forms a danger to animals, and I see a party like the Party for the Animals as a serious option.
3. The Banner: I've become a member of the Dutch Association for Veganism, and I'm planning to do volunteer work soon.
4. The Balaclava: While I don't dismiss all forms of law breaking activity as something unwanted, this is not something I want to participate in myself. I like to focus more on spreading the philosophical ideas.

Yay for Dutch philosophers? Link?

I assume he excludes going vegan from this list because he takes that for granted.

1. I have no idea how I would do this, although I might in the future when I don't live with my parents anymore.
2. I definitely will vote for either the Party for the Animals or GroenLinks (another party that wants to abolish the bio-industry) once I turn 18.
3. I might become a member of the Dutch Association for Veganism too, although I am not sure what I could do for them.
4. Same reason as yours.

5. I might become an Erno Eskens of my own, be the guy that proposes idea rather than the person that spreads them. Not sure though, the future is unclear.

miniboes wrote:Yay for Dutch philosophers? Link?

He has formulated this in his book Democratie voor dieren (Democracy for animals).

miniboes wrote:I assume he excludes going vegan from this list because he takes that for granted.

I'm afraid not. I can't find any reference of him being vegan, but he seems to be a vegetarian (found this in a Telegraaf article).

miniboes wrote:3. I might become a member of the Dutch Association for Veganism too, although I am not sure what I could do for them.

Like the description stated, contribution through membership fee is also helping them. (only cost you €20 a year) Pretty much the whole association is dependent on volunteers, so maybe there's also something you like to do. A summary of how you can help can be found here.

miniboes wrote:5. I might become an Erno Eskens of my own, be the guy that proposes idea rather than the person that spreads them. Not sure though, the future is unclear.

This of course would be great, but I also have to say that animal ethics are already very grown-up and though-out. I'm not really sure how much more there is to say.

miniboes wrote:I assume he excludes going vegan from this list because he takes that for granted.

I'm afraid not. I can't find any reference of him being vegan, but he seems to be a vegetarian (found this in a Telegraaf article).[/quote]

Weird.

miniboes wrote:

miniboes wrote:5. I might become an Erno Eskens of my own, be the guy that proposes idea rather than the person that spreads them. Not sure though, the future is unclear.

This of course would be great, but I also have to say that animal ethics are already very grown-up and though-out. I'm not really sure how much more there is to say.

I agree, and I don't think I have anything special to say on the subject at this point of my life. I do think that's more my type, so to say.

miniboes wrote:

Volenta wrote:I'm afraid not. I can't find any reference of him being vegan, but he seems to be a vegetarian (found this in a Telegraaf article).

Weird.

Well, I also think it's strange in the sense that when you're devoting so much time and energy in making things better, you're still consuming animal products without any problems (although not always without a sense of guilt). But it isn't something uncommon for philosophers to do so. Lot's of them agree it's the best choice to become vegan, but they just can't give up the luxury it seems.

***

Nobody else has something to say? Should I make a poll?

Volenta wrote:A fifth would be The Fork (which the philosopher Floris van den Berg added to the list), starting with what's on your plate and deciding not to eat animal products any longer.

This is the most meaningful way to help the most animals.

If you're not doing this, everything else seems pretty trivial, like helping to relieve starvation in Africa by sending them bibles. OK, maybe they can burn them for fuel to stay warm, and not needing to go get firewood will give them more time to get food?
Really misses the mark.

Volenta wrote: 3. The Banner: you join an association dedicated to the animals, either passively through membership fees, or active through volunteering.

If that organization is encouraging vegetarianism/veganism, it could make a meaningful difference.

Volenta wrote: 1. The Bandage: taking care of sick or abused animals.
2. The Law: change through political means, such as the Party for the Animals.

These are close to useless. As long as the majority of people are happily eating animals, and demand cheap meat, the political will does not exist to make major changes.
Welfare is good, and we should support it where we can, but not fall to the illusion we've done some great thing by voting sensibly.

Taking care of sick animals gives people a great sense of personal moral satisfaction, while doing very little, particularly if they're still causing the suffering and deaths of several hundred animals every year for the taste of them. It's one of the least efficient uses of resources to prevent animals suffering, and the most ego gratifying for those participating (which, unfortunately, gratification of ego is all most people are after, thus why this is so popular).

Volenta wrote: 4. The Balaclava: participate in activities outside the law to stop violence against animals.

I believe this is counter-productive in most cases, and just causes more animal suffering, and delays solutions.

@brimstoneSalad
And in which one do you participate yourself?

brimstoneSalad wrote:These are close to useless. As long as the majority of people are happily eating animals, and demand cheap meat, the political will does not exist to make major changes.
Welfare is good, and we should support it where we can, but not fall to the illusion we've done some great thing by voting sensibly.

I don't agree. Maybe it's the case in the USA, because of the democratic format they're using. In the years that we have the Party for the Animals, there are countless welfare things that they have accomplished. All of these things together have a big impact on the lives of the animals. And that's meaningful because even though people that don't care about animals continue to eat meat, the animals do have a better life. And besides, an animal rights voice in the parliament is great publicity about our thoughts as well. They can also influence other party's that didn't care about it before. And yes, even though politicians may sound dogmatic sometimes, they do change their mind sometimes.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Taking care of sick animals gives people a great sense of personal moral satisfaction, while doing very little, particularly if they're still causing the suffering and deaths of several hundred animals every year for the taste of them. It's one of the least efficient uses of resources to prevent animals suffering, and the most ego gratifying for those participating (which, unfortunately, gratification of ego is all most people are after, thus why this is so popular).

Even though you save many more animals from suffering by going vegan, every individual animal counts. If you're able to give an animal that otherwise would live in a small case for the rest of his/her life (or get killed after some time) a meaningful existence, I think it really is worth something. You can't change the world all by your own, but every small contribution has some impact.

Volenta wrote: Even though you save many more animals from suffering by going vegan, every individual animal counts. If you're able to give an animal that otherwise would live in a small case for the rest of his/her life (or get killed after some time) a meaningful existence, I think it really is worth something. You can't change the world all by your own, but every small contribution has some impact.

"Maybe I cause the suffering and death of several hundred animals every year, but I adopted a rescue cat. I saved that cat's life! And every day I take care of this cat is an act of great charity to animals. So, even though I eat meat and contribute to animal suffering, it all balances out in the end and I'm a good person!"

No.

I'm more concerned with people preventing suffering due to their own actions by abstaining from harm, rather than performing trivial, token acts of kindness to soothe their consciences so they can feel entitled to do whatever else they want and believe they're good people.

Are you familiar with the practice of ceremonially buying and releasing small animals (like birds or fish) to gain good Karma?

http://www.thaibuddhist.com/making-meri ... sing-fish/

The concept is almost as disgusting and Christians 'sinning' and doing every terrible thing they want because they feel entitled to it due to Jesus' sacrifice absolving them of all wrongdoing (not all Christians are like that, of course, but most of them seem to be).

I don't agree that these token actions have the utility you seem to think they do. I think they just make people feel good about themselves, and relieve their guilt for greater and more horrendous harms they cause to the world and have no intention of stopping for sake of their gluttony and sense of moral entitlement.

brimstoneSalad wrote:"Maybe I cause the suffering and death of several hundred animals every year, but I adopted a rescue cat. I saved that cat's life! And every day I take care of this cat is an act of great charity to animals. So, even though I eat meat and contribute to animal suffering, it all balances out in the end and I'm a good person!"

No.

I'm more concerned with people preventing suffering due to their own actions by abstaining from harm, rather than performing trivial, token acts of kindness to soothe their consciences so they can feel entitled to do whatever else they want and believe they're good people.

I agree with you that this is the most important action an individual can make, I'm just not dismissing caring for abandoned animals as almost useless.

What about taking care of an orphan? Also useless? If you're buying cloths from sweatshops that use starving children for their production, it's better to stop doing that, but that doesn't diminish the need for caring for the orphan.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Are you familiar with the practice of ceremonially buying and releasing small animals (like birds or fish) to gain good Karma?

http://www.thaibuddhist.com/making-meri ... sing-fish/

The concept is almost as disgusting and Christians 'sinning' and doing every terrible thing they want because they feel entitled to it due to Jesus' sacrifice absolving them of all wrongdoing (not all Christians are like that, of course, but most of them seem to be).

I don't agree that these token actions have the utility you seem to think they do.

Don't build a straw man... These situations aren't the same.

Volenta wrote:Don't build a straw man... These situations aren't the same.

In what way to you believe the situations are different?

Volenta wrote: I agree with you that this is the most important action an individual can make, I'm just not dismissing caring for abandoned animals as almost useless.

In many cases it can be worse than useless even just in fact. People are very bad at weighing pros and cons against each other. But worse yet, I'm concerned with the sense of moral superiority it gives people, from which position they excuse any number of other actions they might otherwise be compelled to feel responsible for.

Volenta wrote: What about taking care of an orphan? Also useless? If you're buying cloths from sweatshops that use starving children for their production, it's better to stop doing that, but that doesn't diminish the need for caring for the orphan.

Now there's a straw man.