Philosophical Vegan Forum

Isn't who you give your money to a relevant "moral" question for Vegans?

Yes, you can be completely Vegan while shopping at Whole Foods, but by giving Whole Foods your money, you are supporting a business that will either spend your money on restocking their shelves with more animal products or who will pay its omnivore employees that will then spend your money on animal products... There's an argument "floating out there" that by shopping at Whole Foods, you're creating the demand to have Vegan products more easily available for omnivores to experiment with, which is supposed to be "the most effective move towards a Vegan World". Is this really true and would that instrumental move be worth the moral compromise of indirectly supporting animal agriculture? Would it not only be more effective for Vegans to start supporting 100% Vegan businesses (while waiting for the world to change) but isn't it also "immoral" to reward omnivores with your money for relatively insignificant accommodations when there's a known vegan alternative available (there aren't known Vegan Banks or Vegan gas stations so those situations would be sufficiently different, the "Ought implies Can" principle is in effect here) which would make this a question beyond a matter of "preference"?

Sure, when you shop at a 100% Vegan store, there might be tofu that was made with soy beans by a farmer who isn't vegan so (even if you don't buy the tofu) by giving the Vegan business money you are giving them the money to buy more tofu from the supplier who gives money to the manufacturer who gives money to the farmer who then uses your money to buy animal products, but is this a real reason to throw your hands in the air thinking, "What does it matter who gets my money? Omnivores are involved at some point, so who cares!"... Isn't this MORE of a reason for Vegans to exclusively shop at 100% Vegan businesses?

Have you watched this video?
https://youtu.be/N3fneFzfBrc
It is not specifically about veganism, but I think the message applies here.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 26, 2022 1:00 pm Have you watched this video?
https://youtu.be/N3fneFzfBrc
It is not specifically about veganism, but I think the message applies here.

I get that they're making fun of marginalized activists that try to be as consistent as possible with their money but saying it's silly isn't an argument, especially if when you compare the difference between even a few thousand people who do this for the same vegan grocery store ... A big reason why I believe Vegan Haven is no longer in business, people who are supposed to care don't actually care ... How can it be that everyone doesn't understand that money makes or breaks almost everything...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15ZKeFe ... p=drivesdk

We've had many discussions on this topic already that you may be interested in reading:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=6665
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7386
I also made a video on it wink wink:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqIaXR9LaXc

And Gary Yourofsky, despite his many incorrect positions, is right on this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIIF3Y3qMLg

In short: No, there is no harm in buying vegan products from otherwise non-vegan companies, and in fact it's often a net positive due to shifting the demand.

Yay for this discussion, I'll be adding my quotes to your already articulated arguments in the other threads but I wanted to address your argument from the video... Essentially you said by giving omnivore businesses demand for vegan products that will increase their budget towards those products... This is only true if the supply of vegan consumers is growing faster than the supply of omnivore consumers... Aka if the total population is still increasing more than the vegan population that means whatever profit you give them will still go towards omnivore products, only the principal can be reasonably assumed to go towards resupplying vegan products...

The other thing I've seen mentioned is that by creating any demand whatsoever these omnivore businesses then hold vegan supply which then gives omnivores impulse opportunity to buy vegan products... This is delusional, going vegan needs to be a very conscious decision if it's to last more than the impulse

I also wanted this to be in the context of businesses specifically like Vegan Haven which was a 100% vegan grocery store in Seattle before they had to close ... The employees and the owners were vegan and profits went to a pig sanctuary...

In the context of Gardein not being from a vegan supplier, why couldn't vegan haven have some sort of color coded system to inform their consumers as to which products are all the way and which aren't...

I loathe it when political extremists attempt to shoehorn in their politics into veganism in order to claim it for their own; They also may go as far as saying that whoever claims to be vegan but violates a political principle of theirs ISN'T vegan.

People who are vegan because they think it's a stance against capitalism have completely lost the plot in my view; They're often completely ignorant of economics and how market forces work and are engaging in counterproductive behaviour by redefining veganism to suit their ideology.

I agree but calling people stupid isn't an argument...

Imagine a parallel issue, like as if Thomas Jefferson started advertising a portion of his tobacco as slave free ... Giving him money when there were others from the north with zero slaves means you don't really care about the issue... Of course this is in the context of actually having a vegan option... If there's nothing but ~Walmart~ then there's nothing but ~Walmart~

Again, I've addressed all of this. I don't mean to disrespect, but you're giving me the impression that you're motivated by ideological thinking rather than a consequentialist outlook.

Ironic how my argument primarily originated from ideology but the more I think it through the more obvious this internal economics would be for the most favorable consequentialist outcomes... Imagine what your first month of being vegan would be like if you had a regional grocery store the size of whole foods where you didn't have to read labels and where the community uses the business as a social hub (links to specific forums and meetups etc)... Instead mostly everyone is isolated and reading labels and most will probably fall off the wagon without support...

Btw I should make another topic on consequentialism in general, I'm arguing it's a category mistake, like economic calculations applied to morality

I'm sorry for not responding that much to your posts, you have a lot of topics that can start interesting discussions, I've just been pretty busy lately (and as you've noticed the forum is pretty quiet right now), but I'll make an effort to respond to as many of your posts as I can.

TelepathyConspiracy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 4:38 pm Essentially you said by giving omnivore businesses demand for vegan products that will increase their budget towards those products... This is only true if the supply of vegan consumers is growing faster than the supply of omnivore consumers...

That won't happen if you don't promote the production of any vegan products. Either way though, you'd still need to demonstrate that giving money to vegan products increases the investment of non-vegan products. Ultimately vegan products are cheaper to make in the long run (no need to deal with all that waste and using so many crops, not to mention needing to comply with more regulations), so smart enough companies do have a motivation to move to vegan products, they just need to be financially incentivized in the first place to do so. That won't happen if we don't buy from them at all, and in fact they'll just view vegans as an impossible to reach market, so they won't even bother at all, and invest more in meat.

TelepathyConspiracy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 4:38 pmAka if the total population is still increasing more than the vegan population that means whatever profit you give them will still go towards omnivore products, only the principal can be reasonably assumed to go towards resupplying vegan products...

But the money is not going to vegan products, so why would it increase demand for meat?

Companies aren't going to be motivated to make vegan stuff by just seeing displeased vegans. Veganism is going to be a hard sell to companies and consumers alike with that sort of relationship going on.

TelepathyConspiracy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 4:38 pmThe other thing I've seen mentioned is that by creating any demand whatsoever these omnivore businesses then hold vegan supply which then gives omnivores impulse opportunity to buy vegan products... This is delusional, going vegan needs to be a very conscious decision if it's to last more than the impulse

What? This ignores the fact that buying vegan products still has consequences regardless of whether or not it was "impulse." And generally speaking, non-vegan people don't buy them impulsively, rather they buy them as part of their efforts to reduce their meat consumption, since they know that it's ultimately the right thing to do, even if they don't go all the way with it. And as I mentioned in the other threads and as Gary mentioned in the video, more demand will mean more products, which will mean more people will purchase them, vegans and non-vegans alike, to continue reducing their harm on animals and the environment.

BTW, please make all your responses one post instead of multiple, makes it easier to follow.

TelepathyConspiracy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 4:38 pmI also wanted this to be in the context of businesses specifically like Vegan Haven which was a 100% vegan grocery store in Seattle before they had to close ... The employees and the owners were vegan and profits went to a pig sanctuary...

I've seen a few vegan companies do this and it always struck me as strange; doesn't it make more sense to give money to... pigs that aren't in sanctuaries? Like, the ones on factory farms? Why give money to pigs that are already not suffering?

Anyway, the overwhelming majority of charitable actions (in general) tend to be very limited in their effect (sadly) even with the most effective charities reccomended by GiveWell, though with veganism it's much easier to do a LOT since it isn't a primary issue of focus comparatively speaking. Still, you should make an effort to be as effective as possible.
https://animalcharityevaluators.org/

TelepathyConspiracy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 4:38 pmIn the context of Gardein not being from a vegan supplier, why couldn't vegan haven have some sort of color coded system to inform their consumers as to which products are all the way and which aren't...

Products that are 100% vegan will almost always have a Vegan emblem on it to show that it's certified. It's usually pretty easy to tell what products are vegan and which aren't, though it's always a good idea to read the ingredients list if you're not sure.

TelepathyConspiracy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 4:38 pmI agree but calling people stupid isn't an argument...

I never claimed that they were stupid, I said they were ignorant.
And BTW there isn't any problem with calling someone an idiot in an argument if they really are one, as long as you address the rest of their points. It's only problematic if you JUST say they're an idiot.

TelepathyConspiracy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 4:38 pmImagine a parallel issue, like as if Thomas Jefferson started advertising a portion of his tobacco as slave free ... Giving him money when there were others from the north with zero slaves means you don't really care about the issue... Of course this is in the context of actually having a vegan option... If there's nothing but ~Walmart~ then there's nothing but ~Walmart~

If we give ol' Tommy boy enough money on the slave-free stuff, that'd probably tell him people don't want him using slave-labor, and that he's better off

Interestingly, that's one of the reasons why the government had to step in on the issue, and by extension why the US had its Civil War; It was because people weren't making an effort to buy slave-free products, so there wasn't any incentive to move away from it, even though it was widely unpopular.

It might've been more excusable back in the day since it probably wasn't as easy to find out which products weren't slave free, but that doesn't mean it wasn't wrong.

TelepathyConspiracy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 4:38 pmBtw I should make another topic on consequentialism in general, I'm arguing it's a category mistake, like economic calculations applied to morality

I reckon it'd be an interesting discussion.
Also make sure to check out this thread (I think I linked it?)
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopi ... 785&p=7838

TelepathyConspiracy wrote:I get that they're making fun of marginalized activists that try to be as consistent as possible with their money but saying it's silly isn't an argument

I think that you are straw-manning here. They never said it was "silly". The arguments made in that video are:
1) You are severely limiting your own options. Only interacting with people that you agree with (be it, as in the video, about abortion or, in this case, about animal rights) limits what options you have.
2) You are doing virtue signaling. Sorry, but that's just what it is.
3) You are giving the companies incentive to lie, to do greenwashing. How do you know what Vegan Haven was actually doing with the pigs? Chances are, it is doing the same nonsense that PETA is doing, not actually helping the animals.
And, for most vegans out there, it's not doable. There are no vegan-only stores here in Donji Miholjac. Maybe there are some in Osijek, but, chances are, there are not even there.