How do you make 'vegan decisions'?

[leedsveg]

[Hi all. I posted a version of the following last night in another thread but the thread has now been closed. I'd be interested to know what anyone thinks of my ideas. To anybody reading it again + bored again, SORRY!:o]

I think there is a danger with veganism in thinking that it's all about a 'big book of rules' to learn, to follow and most disastrously of all, to hit dissenters with, who don't 'toe the party line'. But what if there isn't really a 'party line'? What if Donald Watson and the Vegan Society (UK) have given us very little to go on, so we have to think for ourselves (Life of Brian anyone?) and create our own veganism?

I like it when Joanne Stepaniak says to vegans in her book Being Vegan "always try to do the least harm and the most good". Also "Each moment of our lives we have the option to do right, do wrong, or do nothing. Attempting to do right as often as we can is all that being vegan requires."

I believe that what Joanne Stepaniak says is correct and it makes more sense to me, than thinking we can have x number of 'vegan rules' to cover all the possible situations, that life can throw at us. A practical effect of this is that there will be some situations, where you do what you perceive to be 'the right thing' and I do what I perceive to be 'the right thing' and although our actions may be totally different, they can both be considered vegan. We may discuss our different actions and their relative merits but at the end of the day, we should respect each other and not just be interested in imposing our own viewpoint on the other person.

leedsveg:)

[Ruby Rose]

Oh the devil in me just wants to bring the topic right back to where it derailed last time! :)

[Bunny]

I totally agree. I always try to do my best. I am sure there are things I do that others would be horrified at, but I cannot beat myself up too much about things! :)

[leedsveg]

Hi Bunny

You make perfect sense to me.:thumbsup:

lv:)



Ruby Rose

Don't you dare!:eek: D'ya know how many gallons of molasses I've metaphorically waded through to get this far?!

lv:D

[kookooforkarma]

Wow. What a wonderful perspective you have exposed me too. I feel happier already!

[leedsveg]

Hi kkfk

The theory of it all is so simple. But putting it into practice...!:)

It's a bit like "Love thy Neighbour". You know what you should do, but it's not easy to do, if your "neighbour" is a daft, crotchety bugger like me.

Still, it cuts down the 'vegan rules to remember' to about 1 (from around 41 trillion). Helps me because I've got a rotten memory.

leedsveg:thumbsup:

[Cumin]

I think there are no hard-and-fast rules, we all have our own personal standards that we are comfortable with. The only thing that matters to me is to _try_. All good definitions of vegan that I have seen use this word.
If someone is trying wherever practical to be vegan, then they are vegan.

For one person this may be never eating something that doesn't have animal products visible in it (e.g. any veggie pizza without cheese). For another it may mean eating no food they haven't prepared themselves because they can't trust other to verify the vegan provenance of things like sugar and spices.

[sandra]

I think we can only do the best we can in any given circumstance. We all have differing ideas I'm sure of what is and isn't acceptable in regards to veganism. For example, I personally would never intentionally eat any non-vegan food product. I just couldn't do it, but I would imagine there are others who do feel this is sometimes acceptable as long as they revert back to their vegan diet. :)

[BlackCats]

I always try to do my best. I am sure there are things I do that others would be horrified at, but I cannot beat myself up too much about things! :)

Same here. There are some grey areas in veganism and the absolute "right" thing to do isn't always obvious so I do what I feel most comfortable with.

[helen105281]

"[/I]always try to do the least harm and the most good". Also "Each moment of our lives we have the option to do right, do wrong, or do nothing. Attempting to do right as often as we can is all that being vegan requires."

I think this sums it up perfectly.

[xrodolfox]

I think we can only do the best we can in any given circumstance. We all have differing ideas I'm sure of what is and isn't acceptable in regards to veganism. For example, I personally would never intentionally eat any non-vegan food product. I just couldn't do it.

This makes total sense to me.

I also have found going vegan quite easy... and as such, I tend to think of intentionally eating non-vegan food as explicitly not vegan. We all make mistakes, but being vegan seems so easy, in every country, regardless of income, that I have ever lived or traveled in.

I think that making mistakes is quite different than intentionally eating animals. As such, I think that the word vegan should be reserved for those that avoid eating animals and animal products to the fullest extent they are able, while folks who eat vegan most of the time except for when they consume intentional animal products or animals are not vegan, but rather vegan sympathizers. Which is still a good place to be...

Watering down what veganism means to appeal to the masses has a stink of welfarism to me. My veganism is NOT an accommodation to dominant culture. It is a rejection of dominant animal consumption culture, and as such, I am not keen on making it easier. I am keen on making veganism mean something.

SRSLY?

Plus, how easy is it to just avoid eating animal products. No one makes a big deal about being abstaining from killing humans. Well, I abstain from killing humans except for those few times a week I do intentionally. But I'm not a human killer! I really follow the non-killing thing the rest of the time. PLZ let me into your linguistic club so that I do not have to feel responsibility for my intentional, but irregular killing of people once every few weeks. But I'm not a killer if I do not do it all the time.

[leedsveg]

Hi xrodolfox
I just spent two and a half hours composing a response to your posting but when I tried to 'submit reply', I lost it all and there was no copy. Never mind.:D

Before I redo it all tomorrow later today, could you clarify a couple of things I was unsure about.


Watering down what veganism means to appeal to the masses has a stink of welfarism to me. My veganism is NOT an accommodation to dominant culture. It is a rejection of dominant animal consumption culture, and as such, I am not keen on making it easier. I am keen on making veganism mean something. Does this refer to something I posted?


Plus, how easy is it to just avoid eating animal products. No one makes a big deal about being abstaining from killing humans. Well, I abstain from killing humans except for those few times a week I do intentionally. But I'm not a human killer! I really follow the non-killing thing the rest of the time. PLZ let me into your linguistic club so that I do not have to feel responsibility for my intentional, but irregular killing of people once every few weeks. But I'm not a killer if I do not do it all the time. Not sure at all what you mean, especially the 'killing humans' and 'your linguistic club' references? Sorry if I'm a bit dense but please elaborate.

Good wishes

leedsveg:)

[whalespace]

Don't abuse or kill animals when you can remove the need to do so [obviate it].

There are variously abstract scopes of consideration.

The exchange of minor monetary tokens is a simple meditation, which is easily accessible, and recognisable to most individuals whom might become involved with the government of local practices, or the consideration of disputes between significant others.

Simplicity is good. As far as this kind of goodness is concerned, results are also good.

[leedsveg]

Don't abuse or kill animals when you can remove the need to do so [obviate it].

There are variously abstract scopes of consideration.

The exchange of minor monetary tokens is a simple meditation, which is easily accessible, and recognisable to most individuals whom might become involved with the government of local practices, or the consideration of disputes between significant others.

Simplicity is good. As far as this kind of goodness is concerned, results are also good.

Whalespace

I understand your first sentence and "Simplicity is good", but nothing else from your posting?! :)

leedsveg

[leedsveg]

Same here. There are some grey areas in veganism and the absolute "right" thing to do isn't always obvious so I do what I feel most comfortable with.

Hi BC

Per Joanne Stepaniak, the "right" thing to do, that is the 'vegan action', would be the action "that creates the most good" and I presume, that would be the action that you would feel most comfortable with.

I can think of one occasion in my life when drinking a glass of cow's milk, would have been a 'vegan action' [August 1970, Dead Sea shore, leedsveg suffering from severe dehydration].

leedsveg:thumbsup:

[BlackCats]

Per Joanne Stepaniak, the "right" thing to do, that is the 'vegan action', would be the action "that creates the most good" and I presume, that would be the action that you would feel most comfortable with.

I think utilitarianism isn't always the best plan of action personally.;) It's a complex world.

[Zanahorias!]

I don't know that doing what you feel most comfortable with is necessarily the best course of action. Rather, in some instances you have to be vocal or take a stand that might not be comfortable but is certainly in the interest of "the most good."

[leedsveg]

I think utilitarianism isn't always the best plan of action personally.;) It's a complex world.

You're right, BC and I paraphrased Joanne Stepaniak badly. Maybe instead of "the action that creates the most good, I should have said something like "the action with the most compassion". Or is that still utilitarianism? Very complex ethics for a complex world. All I know is that it has to be better than blindly trying to follow 'The Vegan Rulebook'.



I don't know that doing what you feel most comfortable with is necessarily the best course of action. Rather, in some instances you have to be vocal or take a stand that might not be comfortable but is certainly in the interest of "the most good."

By 'comfortable with', I meant "that your conscience would feel most comfortable with". Sorry I was not clearer.

leedsveg:)

[BlackCats]

All I know is that it has to be better than blindly trying to follow 'The Vegan Rulebook'.

I agree with you.:)

I still follow my own conscience rather than copy what other vegans think. There are certain issues like donating blood that I felt was not in the interest of animals to donate my blood to meat-eaters but being a blood donor feels like the "right" thing to do for me personally.:hmm:

[leedsveg]

I agree with you.:)

I still follow my own conscience rather than copy what other vegans think. There are certain issues like donating blood that I felt was not in the interest of animals to donate my blood to meat-eaters but being a blood donor feels like the "right" thing to do for me personally.:hmm:

Hi BC

Don't know if you've seen postings in the past from people who refused to give blood because it might go to an omni child, and also would not stop a runaway buggy because the baby in it might grow older and become an omni. Wow!:eek: (I think I'm on my 52nd pint now and have zero interest in who the recipients are.)

lv

[BlackCats]

I don't know that doing what you feel most comfortable with is necessarily the best course of action. Rather, in some instances you have to be vocal or take a stand that might not be comfortable but is certainly in the interest of "the most good."

I suppose it might not be the best course of action but I do follow my heart in most situations.


Hi BC
Don't know if you've seen postings in the past from people who refused to give blood because it might go to an omni child, and also would not stop a runaway buggy because the baby in it might grow older and become an omni. Wow!:eek: (I think I'm on my 52nd pint now and have zero interest in who the recipients are.)
lv

I can see their point to a certain extent but I am sure I wouldn't make the same choices. Well done on the donation.:smile:

[leedsveg]

I can see their point to a certain extent but I am sure I wouldn't make the same choices. Well done on the donation.:smile:

I like the idea of trying to save lives (and they did give me a rather nice pen for the 50th donation!:D)

I do seem to remember about 8 years ago on another forum, a vegan who was going to have a serious operation, was asking vegans if they would donate blood to her before the operation because, for whatever reason, she didn't want to have any non-vegan blood pumped inside her. I decided not to donate, just as I wouldn't have done to someone asking for blood 'only from a white/black donor'.

leedsveg

[RubyDuby]

i don't see the connection?

[Prawnil]

3 ... 2 ... 1 ... splurge:
Vegan is a proprietary term, coined by English committee in recent history as a political breakaway. As such, it represents precisely nothing more than the Party Line that seems so repulsive. I mean by this that Veganism is the list of rules, operating as the turn-stile to those willing to tick-box assign themselves to the 'Us' opposed to 'them,' in a political, social move representing an attitude to the status of animal others relative to human lives.

From that perspective veganism is in ways like a marker very simply comparable to Halal and Kosher, one thin-end-of-the wedge (among many, possibly an unlimited number) practical application, within consumption, of far grander ideologies. What's weird about 'vegan' in contrast is that it then marks the 'philosphy' itself as well as the 'adherence' of the product. I 'X' philosophy because I've come to consider veganism as far more akin to a politcal party (hence I consider that it really is, or really requires the 'party line!') than a philosphy - I can see this point as extremely easy to misinterpret - what I mean by kind of demoting veganism is that it is the business end of an actual ethical attitude that being 'vegan' does not envelope; which does not have the boundaries that veganism, to work as a badge-political progressive movement of any kind needs in order to define itself (in negative terms: 'we Don't do...') and its project.

Vegan/ism does work socially. Without meaning to affect people socially, there is no purpose in assigning yourself to veganism. Your ethics doesn't need naming. This unnamed can't be denied you if you break the limit of veganism.

The party line style is the scaffold to a coherent community - you are a legitimate member (to the Other-vegans -the imaginary community built up by interacting with wider veganISM - that appeals to your conscience - the true vegan police) when you accept the minimal conditions. A problem is treating the Minimal Conditions as actual 100% expressions of your ethical attitude. They preserve some kind of continuity in the community to bind its members in something singular and some are only analogies to the main principles of veganism that are most obvious in confinement and slaughter of mammals, birds and fish. This is the point that people are most likely to disagree (with me): There's a fault-line in the region of pet ownership. The fault-line is a relative gaping chasm in The Land of Silk and Honey. The word 'Animal' appears and then, without definite limits (or consideration of where compassion ENDS) the general rules for treatment of 'Animal X' are applied for the sake of consistency. I mean by this that I avoid systems using insects as a resource because I am vegan, and secondarily, am vegan because I avoid systems using etc...
That since I have no hard desire for honey or silk or chocolate coated locusts I refuse them to be vegan - That this was not part of my moral make-up in advance of choosing veganism.
My point is certainly not that this is true for all vegans.

All this does have a point, some benefits:

-That all of the variation beyond the party line is entirely personal, but doesn't need to be seen as veganism itself, but its precursor on a person-by-person basis.

-It's even more clear that entry to veganism can be from any angle at all providing that it your attitude towards non-human 'Others' is not one of means to human ends. Thus spake The Vegan Society.
(If this pre-vegan philosophy is treated AS veganism, its limits as a founded group necessarily allows only a narrower spectrum of attitudes to become legitimately Vegan.)

-Veganism may be less of a defining feature to a person.

-Probably most importantly, if it's basically devalued; 'veganism' surrendered to the founding party-like group, diversity of 'members' is less antagonistic and definition may move to discussion.
If the vegan limits are non-negotiable matters of history, there is less vying to out-define other vegans.
This does start to make less sense as I type though - a problem is that where interactions with animals were not 'defined,' the harder-core of veganism is applied to them by analogy - Don't keep, don't kill - In the case of pets, a person may be Keeping to reduce Killing. But may be Killing in order to Keep in order NOT TO Kill!! (I'm talking pets and their meat food). Perhaps these should be treated as beyond the party line and so not to be associated with Veganism (as in, to be discussed in terms of personal ethics but NOT Veganism).

[-Maybe more importantly still, it means that appearances, as in realistic faux leather etc., are beyond the reach of the 'party' and so I have abondoned treating my opinion on this as relating to veganism in any way. Such issues become matters of personal preference and ethical difference but not vegan difference, where they always belonged.]

If veganism is treated as little more than the badges representing it, there's little reason to be aggrieved by your internalised vegan police denying you veganism on occasions that you've passed the limits of vegan 'Law.' The attitude bringing you to the vegan rallying point is intact - in a silly way (but to be honest, in not an entirely non-serious way!) it would have been simpler if The Vegan Society had been founded with a an exclusion period 'built-in' for such moments (drank milk?? Two week excommunication for you!). Treating it as a community-society would discourage people over-identifying with the movement in a troublesome way.

It's quite wonderful what standing under a flag flying a single word will do.


=============
This was meant as a response to the question, but to be honest I've lost the answer in there myself, so you'll just have to take my word for it. Essentially, my answer was that I don't make vegan decisions. No part of the above is a corner I would fight, nor a True veganism above others', but only a way of relating to veganism that feels freer, despite all the talk of the value of the 'pary line.' I have re-externalised veganism into something I choose to be subjected to in order to form part of a mass with a purpose. Where before I had confounded the ethical attitude with the social project - which makes the vegan definition dangerously personal, and gives the illusion of a (in the words of someone, I, uhh...forget who) 'Vegan Truth.'

In the absence of a collapse function for posts, I'd suggest people just put me on Ignore so the thread'll flow better on the page :lol:

[leedsveg]

Hi Prawnil

I was just about to go to bed when I saw your posting. At this time of night and after a long day, I don't understand it fully but it did seem very interesting!:D

I'll print it out and go through it all tomorrow with a pencil and then reply to you (if you're still around and the 'pet owners' haven't 'got you' first).:eek:

leedsveg