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.
Is climate change cruel to animals?
It’s not intentional harm, but it causes suffering. People will weigh that differently based on the ethical framework (deontology - utilitarianism spectrum).
Going on vacation by plane arguably isn’t vegan from a utilitarian perspective. Deontologists might still see it as vegan.
If someone needs to drive a car and can’t afford an EV, it’s not practical to avoid fossil fuels in this case. So that would be vegan either way.
I think the “avoiding as far as possible and practicable” principle also makes a lot of sense for the use of fossil fuels by environmentalists.
Wouldn’t this mean that if someone derives a sufficient number of utils from eating meat (enough that not eating it would be “impractical”), then eating meat is vegan?
Suppose where you live and where you work are fixed. You can drive and murder animals via climate change. Or you can ride your bike. But driving takes 30 min, and riding your bike takes 2 h. There is nothing dangerous or otherwise bad about riding your bike - it just takes an extra 3 h out of your day that you’d rather spend playing video games. As per the above definition, you can murder animals via climate change because it is “impractical” (ie, unpleasant because you are impatient) to ride your bike, and still call yourself a vegan.
Now, a new scenario. Suppose you are avoiding driving and are riding your bike 2h each way to get to work. But on the way to and from work, you pass a McD’s. Every time you pass it, your mouth waters. You are hungry. You really like the taste of their animal products. And the taste of a quarter pounder with cheese fills you with memories of a happy childhood. You want it so much, in fact, that not stopping there to buy a hamburger creates twice as much negative utility for you as biking instead of driving - ie, is twice as inconvenient to avoid eating a hamburger. Given this scenario and the above definition, eating hamburgers is vegan if you like them enough.
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
The definition from the vegan society is:
Is climate change cruel to animals? It’s not intentional harm, but it causes suffering. People will weigh that differently based on the ethical framework (deontology - utilitarianism spectrum).
Going on vacation by plane arguably isn’t vegan from a utilitarian perspective. Deontologists might still see it as vegan.
If someone needs to drive a car and can’t afford an EV, it’s not practical to avoid fossil fuels in this case. So that would be vegan either way.
I think the “avoiding as far as possible and practicable” principle also makes a lot of sense for the use of fossil fuels by environmentalists.
Wouldn’t this mean that if someone derives a sufficient number of utils from eating meat (enough that not eating it would be “impractical”), then eating meat is vegan?
If someone is literally starving and there’s only meat available, it can be argued that it would be vegan to eat it in that situation.
No, I mean like…
Suppose where you live and where you work are fixed. You can drive and murder animals via climate change. Or you can ride your bike. But driving takes 30 min, and riding your bike takes 2 h. There is nothing dangerous or otherwise bad about riding your bike - it just takes an extra 3 h out of your day that you’d rather spend playing video games. As per the above definition, you can murder animals via climate change because it is “impractical” (ie, unpleasant because you are impatient) to ride your bike, and still call yourself a vegan.
Now, a new scenario. Suppose you are avoiding driving and are riding your bike 2h each way to get to work. But on the way to and from work, you pass a McD’s. Every time you pass it, your mouth waters. You are hungry. You really like the taste of their animal products. And the taste of a quarter pounder with cheese fills you with memories of a happy childhood. You want it so much, in fact, that not stopping there to buy a hamburger creates twice as much negative utility for you as biking instead of driving - ie, is twice as inconvenient to avoid eating a hamburger. Given this scenario and the above definition, eating hamburgers is vegan if you like them enough.
it’s utilitarian, but not vegan
Why wouldn’t it be vegan?
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