'Judgmentalism': There is no vegan police

[Korn]

A dear member of our site wrote in another thread:

I'm also opposed to pet ownership and encouraging an industry that keeps churning out more mouths to feed on an already overpopulated planet. I'm not talking about the rescue pets - thank goodness someone takes them in.

[...]

By the way, I'm not "attacking" anyone in particular here - I'm just more concerned about the environment than anyone's desire to reproduce and take even more resources from the earth.

Thanks Melina, I've been wanting to say something about pets and children and you gave me a thread. I will now sit quietly and wait for the vegan police to arrive.

This is a very interesting post, not only because we haven't had a separate thread about 'Is it vegan to have pets?', which I have been expecting for a while, but because it illustrates the nature of the 'vegan police' very well.


In the end, she says that she will 'sit quietly and wait for the vegan police to arrive'. In the beginning of the thread, she writes stuff that may make others feel that they are being 'policed': 'What? I'm not allowed to have pets if I'm a vegan'?

I an NOT saying that the writer is policing anyone. She isn't. She is sharing her opinions, which is great and expected in a forum like this. My point is only that IF someone would reply to that post and say that they disagreed with her, she (or someone else) may have felt attacked by 'the vegan police', but they would only be sharing their opinions as well...

The vegan police does only exists in our minds. Vegans are not saints, and there are arrogant and judgemental people among vegans as in all other groups. Of course it is. But disagreeing with someone, even strongly, isn't policing. If someone is being judgemental, let's try not to judge them for that. Let's not be arrogant about arrogance. Let's not pretend we are saints either....

Again, I'm not saying that this post was arrogant, policing, judgemental or anything else. It just shows how 'disagreement' can be mistaken for policing, arrogance or judging... by some people, in some situation.

Someone once said that most problems in life didn't come from what happened to us, but how we related to these situations.

'War is over - if you want it' (John Lennon).
Policing doesn't exist - if you don't want it to.

[Geoff]

This is a very interesting post, not only because we haven't had a separate thread about 'Is it vegan to have pets?', which I have been expecting for a while, but because it illustrates the nature of the 'vegan police' very well.

I thought there was a thread about vegans and pets. Personally, I don't think it's compatible with vegan ideals to have 'pets' but I have no problem with 'companion animals' especially when they're rescues.

[Korn]

I thought there was a thread about vegans and pets.

I thought so too, but didn't find it, but realized now that this it is in the Poll-area... I suspected that it disappeared in the Veganforum'-crash.

[Daniel]

Yes, I agree. The term "vegan police" is nothing more than an ad hominem attack. That is, it is an appeal to personal prejudice that has nothing to do with reason.

Such attack are often used to denigrate people who refuse to use non-vegan products, such as those that contain honey, traces of dairy, or any other products containing, or manufactured in someway with, animals. Those who, with good reasons, refused to support the BK VEGGIE® were a prime target of this abuse. The phase tends to be thrown around by those who deny the validity and importance of non-cooperation with animal exploitation. So, rather than deal with their own ethical inconsistencies they create an epithet for disparaging others.

[FR]

I agree that the "vegan police" do not exist. I have seen the term thrown around a lot on a lacto-ovo vegetarian centered message board, though. The people who used it were just trying to insult vegans in general.

[Roxy]

Well said Korn.

[John]

I've also noticed a trend here of referring to certain things as "ridiculous."
For instance, replacing one's leather shoes before they wear out has been referred to as "ridiculous." I can understand if someone wants to get his or her money's worth out of remaining animal products, but why insult people who want to eliminate animal products from their lives as soon as possible?

[Roxy]

I agree with that too. Just because I might think something is "stupid" - doesn't mean that it is infact, "stupid". It's simply my opinion.

I try to get in the habbit of saying "I think that's great" or "I think that's stupid" rather than "that's great" or "that's stupid".

We all have varying opinions.

[DianeVegan]

Okay, I admit it. I am the one who used the vegan police phrase in the above quote. However, it was in a thread where there WAS a lot of passionate debate going on and another member felt that she might need to leave the forum. It was said somewhat in jest, somewhat in a way to let her know she was not alone. I hope no one ever feels policed by differing opinions, especially not mine. Many of us would not be vegans today if we did not hear a differing opinion at some point. If we don't debate and only agree with each other then this forum becomes awfully boring at times.

I must leave now as there are flashing lights and a siren outside my front door..................

[Caitlin]

Okay, I admit it. I am the one who used the vegan police phrase in the above quote. However, it was in a thread where there WAS a lot of passionate debate going on and another member felt that she might need to leave the forum.

Don't worry, I feel like that all the time.

[Mystic]

Vegans are not saints, and there are arrogant and judgemental people among vegans as in all other groups.

AMEN to that!!!!!

[Korn]

Okay, I admit it. I am the one who used the vegan police phrase in the above quote.

I think most of us, myself included, have used it. Musicians often talk about 'The Music Police'.

I guess it's just a reference to 'judgementalism'. Let's not fall into the trap and police the policemen .

[DoveInGreyClothing]

Here's their link... http://www.vegan911.com/1513.html

[Roxy]

I have to say "Amen"! with Banana on that one!

[Tombstone]

I think that if you see someone behaving in a way that you think is immoral, you should explain to them why you think that is. That person might react negatively and say that you are 'policing' them, but this isn't always going to be the case. Literally saying 'You should stop doing that, naughty naughty' is pointless and I would refer to that as policing. But sharing moral values and hoping that someone might agree with you is a good thing. When I do this, it is generally with the thought that the person is currently unaware of why their actions are immoral, and I hope that with my explanation, they will cease. Once people do accept moral values, and 'slip up' (or sellout as I sometimes call it), I don't know how to deal with it, I generally don't say anything and just hope that they come around. I feel that anything I say in this scenario would be taken in the wrong way - they already know why it's wrong, they just don't care at that point in time, so me saying 'you shouldn't do that' really is pointless.

[DianeVegan]

Well put, Tombstone.

[Seaside]

.....The vegan police does only exists in our minds......
Policing doesn't exist - if you don't want it to.

That reminds me of my favorite quote from a very cheesy divorce court show I used to watch when I was a kid. The judge said that "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."

But surely there must be at least one or two law enforcement officials out there who are vegan, musn't there? I intend to start finding out whenever I get pulled over for speeding or not wearing a seat-belt.

[Tofu Monster]

i don't think there are 'vegan police' on this forum. i just think there are some vegans who are less tolerant of other vegans in the 'grey areas' of veganism. but we're all working towards the same goal and hopefully we'll all get there together one day.

above all, it's important to remember that everyone is entitled to my own opinion.

[okok]

I am new to this forum so I don't know what has been written here and how, but I'd like to comment about "being judgemental" as used in the beginning of the thread and in other similar contexts. Please excuse me if this is just my not understanding the proper meaning of "being judgemental", for I am not a native English speaker, but as I understand it, this term becomes extremely problematic when applied to moral issues. Almost everyone would agree that Being non judgemental not just about, say, someone's brutal torture and murder of innocent children, but even about relatively minor things such as small thefts, is wrong. So if you think that someone's dietary habits are morally wrong, why be non judgemental about it?

Whether it is wise to simply denounce such people in an offending and alienating way is a different question. I agree that if you want to help someone change, in most cases saying to them that they are immoral would be a wrong thing to do, simply because it won't work. But this does not mean that you should be willing to accept others' moral choices as private matters of taste which should not be judged.

[Daniel]

Good point, okok. Judgments are how choices--good ones anyway--are made. If you are going to make the right choices in life you have to be able to judge what is right and what is wrong. This means being able to judge if something is vegan or not.

I think being non-judgmental is very problematic, esp. from a vegan point of view. People should be encouraged to make rational judgments. Non-rational judgments, however reasoned they may be--such as racism, sexism and speciesism--are wrong, but that doesn't make all judgments wrong.

People usually only complain about negative judgments, but saying you like someone, something or some idea is as much a judgment as saying you dislike someone, something or some idea.

Saying, for example, that honey is not vegan is a judgment, but it doesn't follow that the person saying that is policing anyone. Vegans don't use animal-derived products. Honey is a product produced by bees. Bees are animals. Therefore, saying honey is not vegan because it is an animal product is a rational judgment. What is not rational is attacking someone by calling them the "vegan police" for making a rational judgment, and then coming up with all kinds of reasons and rationalizations for why vegans can eat honey.

Those who call people the "vegan police" are most likely trying to discourage independent critical thinking. They have invented an insult as a way to force others to conform. Those who call dissenters vegan police are, in a way, acting as thought police.

[Korn]

English is not my native language either, which I'm sure cause some misunderstandings now & then. When I used the word judgemental, I was referring to a patronizing, condescending, holier-than-thou attitude, and (of course) not saying that one should never speak out when one find something wrong or never disagree.

Belonging to a minority can be tricky. With a lifestyle different than most people have, one may look at some of the ideas, actions and emotions (or lack of emotions) 'normal' people has as just as 'strange' as our lifestyle appears to them.

A non-vegan's reaction to a vegan may be 'What? Eating plants only? Don't be silly.... Wake up!'
A vegan's reaction to a non-vegan may be 'Are you really eating honey... bee-puke? How can you do something like that?' A long-time vegan's reaction to a new vegan may be 'What? Are you suggesting that fish may not feel pain? Leave the forum, you are a troll!' A vegan's reaction to another vegan may be 'You don't feel angry when you see an animal forced to live it's life in a cage? Shame on you!' Or when talking to a vegan who is in love with a non-vegan 'How can you feel attracted to someone who is involved in a and responsible for all that cruelty??????'

IMO a human can't change another human, but we can possible help each other becoming more aware / change focus. The question is how.

I hope and think that the holier-than-thou attitude sometimes to be observed among vegans is more and more becoming a thing of the past. More than anything else, not accepting how others feel and think just push them away, both on a personal and philosophical level. We are what are... We can change, but to me, it looks like this kind of policing mentality just causes the opposite result of what the constables want to achieve.

I can be pretty enthusiastic in trying to explain people why I look at things the way I do sometimes, and in some cases, I find it very hard to understand if people I communicate with don't just look at things the same way I do, because..... I see things the way I see things. But for me, 'What? How can you *******????' just doesn't do the trick.

Am I being judgemental about judgemental people now?

[eve]

I try to avoid being judgmental, but sometimes the only other option is to hold my tongue (and believe me that is difficult - I spent a lifetime of holding my tongue as a child at home, as a wife, and as an employee - but now as an older person on my own, I relish speaking my mind). However, today, for example I went to the home of an acquaintance, Ray, who wanted assistance with setting up a webmail. While I was there, Ray proudly showed me a grandchild's garment made by his wife. It had an embroidered motif across the front, saying something like "I'm great at fishing". Ray takes him fishing, and I felt terribly sad that a guy as nice as Ray, thinks it is ok to teach his grandson to kill fish. Being in his house, I held my tongue, but tomorrow morning at the swimming pool, I'll tell him how I felt, and why.

[Daniel]

I don't understand what is wrong with being judgmental. What people are saying here doesn't fit the definition of the word as I know it: 1. Of, relating to, or dependent on judgment. 2. Inclined to make judgments, esp. moral or personal ones. I think being judgmental is a good thing. People should be judgmental, because that means they think before they do something.

It seems to me people are confusing judgments with something else. Do you mean a lack of consideration, perhaps? Well, consideration is part of being judgmental. Something is considered in the formation of a judgment. So, then, a mindful concern for others is part of being judgmental. That means eve is being judgmental when she considers how to react to Ray's fishing. If eve just shouted out "You stupid fish murderer!" with out considering what she was saying, then that would be the opposite of being judgmental.

Of course people can, and often do, make bad judgments, but I don't think that means people shouldn't be judgmental. I think it would be much worse if people don't make any judgment at all.

[okok]

You are right, Daniel. "Being non judgemental" seems to have gained the status of a sacred value, and this value/fashion has its roots in the basic liberal idea that one has a right to do whatever one likes; but somewhere along the way the extremly important second part of the principle was forgotten: that this right ends when one's actions harm others. It is not only your right to judge others, it is your moral duty, and if you can't be a moral person without it.

[Korn]

What is your definition of 'judgemental'?

[okok]

Daniel's definition 2: Inclined to make judgments, esp. moral or personal ones.

If by 'judgemental' you mean just the tendency to say to others what you think about them, then, again, it is immoral not to say anything when someone is doing something that is morally wrong, but I agree that often you need to do this carefuly, in the way that would serve best the matter in question.

[Kumem]

It is not only your right to judge others, it is your moral duty, and if you can't be a moral person without it.

Who decides what is right and wrong though? Surely this is completely subjective. What about people who are judged for their race, colour, sexuality?
As there is no definitive right and wrong, it is dangerous to suggest and actively encourage judgementalism.
I cannot think of instances when being judgemental led to change in a persons habits. Tolerance and education IMO are more effective.

[okok]

This is exactly the example of the liberal idea going bad. If you think that it is my right to choose whether to kill my neighbours, for instace, if I feel like it, or kill a cow when getting bored with all those plant-based foods, then you have a serious problem. It is not only your right to think and say it is wrong. It is your duty and it is not "subjective".

[okok]

Let me add something. I definitely agree that tolerance is very important and that education is key to solutions of problems such as cruelty to animals, but moral relativisim (i.e. right and wrong are subjective) is dead wrong and immoral, and unsurprisingly, it is the tool used most often by abusers of all sorts to justify their acts.

[Korn]

Since we all agree that we find some actions wrong/bad/unwanted/immoral, noone in here thinks that we are not entitled to look at anything whichever way we want, make our own opinions, or suggest that we should force ourselves to NOT to let others know what we mean. This is obvious.

The problem is rather the opposite: some actions, from others might provoke us to such agree that we communicate our opinions to these people in such a way that what we say will just push them away.

Kumem doesn't say that it is someones right to kill someone, but that people have individual/subjective/different ideas about what is right and wrong.

Maybe 'judgemental' is not the right word, but this thread is about 'policing', not about 'sharing your opinions with others'.

It's not about shutting up/or not having opinions, but about when and how you communicate your views, isn't it?

If I really want someone to understand why I look at things the way I do (as opposed to a self-centered vent), telling them that they are idiots, selfish, killers etc most likey won't make them agree with me - ever.

[Kumem]

This is exactly the example of the liberal idea going bad. If you think that it is my right to choose whether to kill my neighbours, for instace, if I feel like it, or kill a cow when getting bored with all those plant-based foods, then you have a serious problem. It is not only your right to think and say it is wrong. It is your duty and it is not "subjective".

I was talking about being judgemental generally. I made no references to extreme examples, such as the ones you have chosen to make.
What is considered right and wrong is subjective. There will always be some things that are considered right or wrong by the majority, such as murder, rape etc.

[okok]

I agree with Korn's last words, but not with Kumem:

There will always be some things that are considered right or wrong by the majority, such as murder, rape etc.

Whether the view is held by the majority or by a minority is asolutely of no relevance here. Most people don't see an inherent problem in killing animals for food, but this does not make this practice right and does not it make its being right or wrong "subjective". It is objectively wrong, and would remain so even if nobody thought so.

[Seaside]

I was talking about being judgemental generally. I made no references to extreme examples, such as the ones you have chosen to make.
What is considered right and wrong is subjective. There will always be some things that are considered right or wrong by the majority, such as murder, rape etc.

I see what you mean about everyone having different ideas about what is right and wrong. But do you really think that those who murder, rape, steal, etc. do these things because they know they are the right things to do according to their own personal beliefs? I tend to believe that they KNOW it is wrong, and that even though they are behaving contrary to their beliefs, they do it anyway because it is what they want to do. And even if they never get caught and punished, they still suffer from wrongdoing. I do believe there is a concrete idea of what is wrong, and it involves knowingly and deliberately causing harm to others. There may be sado-masochists who enjoy being harmed, and want to share that joy with others, in which case they may have convinced themselves that hurting others without their consent is not wrong. But most of us know it is wrong to harm others, and those who go ahead and harm others anyway KNOW they are doing something wrong, or they wouldn't try to hide it or justify it afterwards.

I also think that people who eat meat KNOW at a very deep level that it is wrong, even though they won't admit it. I think this subconcious guilt is what makes them so hostile to us. People who truly live according to their beliefs, whatever they are, are without internal conflict.

[Daniel]

Who decides what is right and wrong though? Surely this is completely subjective. What about people who are judged for their race, colour, sexuality?
As there is no definitive right and wrong, it is dangerous to suggest and actively encourage judgementalism.
I cannot think of instances when being judgemental led to change in a persons habits. Tolerance and education IMO are more effective.

Sorry, Kumem, but you have this all wrong. okok is right, what you are talking about is called ethical subjectivism, and it is totally immoral. As Judith A. Boss explains in Analyzing Moral Issues:

Ethical subjectivists claim that individual people create their own morality. There are no objective moral truths—only individuals' opinions or preferences. What is right for you may be wrong for me, depending on our respective feelings. You may feel that it is wrong to eat meat; I may feel it is right for me. The rightness or wrongness of our actions depends on how each of us feels about racism of meat-eating.

Do not confuse ethical subjectivism with the obviously true and trivial statement that "whatever a person believes is right for him or her is what that person believes is right for him or her." Ethical subjectivism goes beyond this by claiming that sincerely believing or feeling that something is right makes it right for the individual. Because morality is merely a matter of personal opinion, we can never be mistaken about what is right and wrong. In other words, my actions in terrorizing black students on campus are morally commendable and perhaps even morally obligatory, so long as I personally feel that what I am doing is right.

When asked if he thought what he did was wrong, convicted serial killer Craig Price calmly replied, "Morality is a private choice." If morality is simply a matter of personal opinion, there is no point in trying to use rational arguments to convince the racist or the serial killer that what he did was wrong, anymore than it would make sense to try to convince me that I really don't like cashew nuts. …

If morality is based only on personal feeling or opinion, no one can ever be mistaken about what is morally correct of incorrect. The correct position on a moral issue is simply a matter of personal feeling, rather than reason of shared values. When peoples' views come into conflict, those who are strongest will be able to impose their agenda on others, as Craig Price did. Under ethical subjectivism we do not have to tolerate other people's views or even their lives unless, of course, we feel that tolerance is right for us.

What Would the World Be Like if We Took Ethical Subjectivism Seriously? Ethical subjectivism is one of the weakest moral theories. If taken seriously, it permits people to exploit and hurt others without having to justify their actions. As a theory, it does not provide a correct explanation for why certain actions are wrong. In real life we generally make moral judgments independent of anyone's feelings towards the action. Indeed, the fact that a serial killer enjoys torturing and killing his victims of that a child molester sincerely believes that his young victims enjoyed being raped only makes their actions more horrific. If ethical subjectivism were true, the opposite would be the case: Our moral heroes would be psychopaths—people who act solely on their feelings, without concern for any universal moral principles.

People must be judgmental if we want to live in a just and ethical world. If you believe right and wrong are "completely subjective" then there is no point in educating others about veganism. If people shouldn't be judgmental, then, as Boss points out above, "there is no point in trying to use rational arguments to convince" others. The point of rational arguments is to make judgments, that is, to be judgmental. Subjectivism makes education pointless, racism justified and tolerance useless.

[Korn]

If you believe right and wrong are "completely subjective" then there is no point in educating others about veganism.

Since almost everyone in here has come to a new, different viewpoint about animal products than we have been brought up with, doesn't that show that the conlusions we come to based on our subjectivity has changed? Unless one will force others to follow one's own version of the truthm there is no other way than to educate people, raise the awareness.

If people shouldn't be judgmental, then, as Boss points out above, "there is no point in trying to use rational arguments to convince" others.

If people somewhere inside geel that it's wrong to kill animals for food, and someone will explain that we don't need it for health reasons, some people will change their lifestyle.

The point of rational arguments is to make judgments, that is, to be judgmental.

But there's nobody who have said anything against being judgemental in that sense of the word ('make judgements'). Look at the first post again. We are discussing two different topics here now, because the word 'judgemental' is being used in two different ways.

Veganism has a lot in common with macrobiotics. One of the main macrobiotic writers, George Oshawa, wrote a book called 'The Book Of Judgement', where he explains that a major sign that a person is out of balance ('sanpaku', = too much 'yin'-energy) is that he is loosing his abilty to analyze/judge a situation properly and act accordingly. That version of 'judge' is something totally different than being arrogant ans pissed off with with people who have different viewpoints than yourself, or people who have opinions based on NOT having spent as much energy on considering all the pro's and con's as yourself.

Do you see that we are talking about two different topics?

[Daniel]

Since almost everyone in here has come to a new, different viewpoint about animal products than we have been brought up with, doesn't that show that the conlusions we come to based on our subjectivity has changed? Unless one will force others to follow one's own version of the truthm there is no other way than to educate people, raise the awareness.

And raise awareness about what? What is right and wrong, maybe? But that's not the same thing as what Kumem was saying. Kumem wrote, "What is considered right and wrong is subjective." If right and wrong are "completely subjective," as Kumem said, then what would be the point of raising others awareness? Most people here would agree that using animal products is universally wrong, regardless of our subjective feelings. Quoting Boss, "In real life we generally make moral judgments independent of anyone's feelings towards the action."

If people somewhere inside geel that it's wrong to kill animals for food, and someone will explain that we don't need it for health reasons, some people will change their lifestyle.

And if right and wrong are only subjective, and people didn't feel--in any way--that it is wrong to kill animals (human or nonhuman) for food, then it wouldn't be wrong to kill any animals for food. That is why ethical subjectivism is a mistake.

But there's nobody who have said anything against being judgemental in that sense of the word ('make judgements'). Look at the first post again. We are discussing two different topics here now, because the word 'judgemental' is being used in two different ways.

Then you are using the wrong term. But I personally think people have said you can't make judgments. I encourage people to be more judgmental and put more consideration into their posts.

Veganism has a lot in common with macrobiotics. One of the main macrobiotic writers, George Oshawa, wrote a book called 'The Book Of Judgement', where he explains that a major sign that a person is out of balance ('sanpaku', = too much 'yin'-energy) is that he is loosing his abilty to analyze/judge a situation properly and act accordingly. That version of 'judge' is something totally different than being arrogant ans pissed off with with people who have different viewpoints than yourself, or people who have opinions based on NOT having spent as much energy on considering all the pro's and con's as yourself.

Do you see that we are talking about two different topics?

Yes, I see you are talking about two different things, but "judge" doesn't mean "being arrogant ans pissed off with with people who have different viewpoints than yourself, or people who have opinions based on NOT having spent as much energy on considering all the pro's and con's as yourself." And it shouldn't be assumed that someone is being arrogant or pissed off because they say something is wrong or a mistake.

My point is that people should be judgmental, and that means people should let other be judgmental. That's why I think those who call others the "vegan police" are acting as thought police, because they are telling others that they shouldn't make judgments about what is or isn't vegan. Worse is when people say making vegan-based judgments is bad for the movement. I'm opposed to people saying thing like "there is no definitive right and wrong, it is dangerous to suggest and actively encourage judgementalism."

[terrace max]

Surely to be judgemental is to be, inevitably, condescending to some degree. It suggests an attainment of a higher level of moral certainty not enjoyed by the person you are judging.

And isn't moral relativism the inevitable and necessary consequence of losing the ultimate arbiter (God)?

From a pragmatic point of view, judgement in any form doesn't facilitate useful dialogue. I can't help feeling what matters is what you do i.e. how you convert your moral judgement into action. It is only how we live, not what we pronounce upon, which might actually affect others. Being judgemental isn't wrong (that would be judgemental of me) it's just ineffective. When did anybody ever respond favourably to being exposed as unreasoning, unethical or whatever?

Perhaps it's only when we stop actively trying to influence others that we might start doing so...?

[Korn]

Kumem wrote, "What is considered right and wrong is subjective." If right and wrong are "completely subjective," as Kumem said...

She didn't write about what is right and wrong, but about what people CONSIDER right and wrong. You're misjudging her.

And if right and wrong are only subjective, and people didn't feel, in any way, that it is wrong to kill animals (human or nonhuman) for food, then it wouldn't be wrong to kill any animals for food.

No. Then it wouldn't be considered wrong by the people who killed for food, but it would be considered wrong by you.

"judge" doesn't mean "being arrogant ans pissed off with with people who have different viewpoints than yourself, or people who have opinions based on NOT having spent as much energy on considering all the pro's and con's as yourself."

Nobody said it did.

Merrian-Webster Online:
"Main Entry: judg·men·tal
Pronunciation: "j&j-'men-t&l
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or involving judgment
2 : characterized by a tendency to judge harshly
- judg·men·tal·ly /-E/ adverb"

Example of how the word is used from WordNet 2.0:
"1. judgmental -- (depending on judgment; ``a judgmental error"; "I think that she is too judgmental to be a good therapist'' )"

34 Moby Thesaurus words for "judgmental":
"abusive, blackening, blameful, censorious, condemnatory,
contemptuous, critical, damnatory, denunciatory, deprecative,
deprecatory, depreciative, derisive, disparaging, execrating,
execrative, execratory, invective, inveighing, judicative,
judicial, judiciary, judicious, juridic, juristic, objurgatory,
priggish, reproachful, reprobative, reviling, ridiculing, scoffing,
vilifying, vituperative"

If I'm against using violence against kids, I'm also against that you are using violence against kids. If I saw someone hit a kid, I'd definitely speak out and also try to prevent it. I would act, based on my judgement of the situation. I would be 'judgemental' in one meaning of the word, in a way which nobody, I guess, would disagree in.

Back to being judgmental (in the 'policing' sense, whether that's the right or wrong use of the word), it's all about when and how we communicate. I can't imagine a life where I should speak out every time I see something I would have done different or someone who does something I disagree with. It's simply not possible. I live on the coast: If I should tell every fisher I see that he is a killer and every person who eats meat that he is responsible for animal abuse, there wouldn't be any time left. So it's definitely a question of WHEN, and more important: a question of HOW. If people ask me, I try to be clear about my viewpoints, but I know that people who use every opportunity to tell others how wrong they are (yes, some people seem to do that) often just make people disagree with them by this behavior.

As most of us have experienced, there are plenty of opportunities to explain others why we have made the choices we have... normally, more opportunities than many people want (at work, family visits etc).


Judging can also be about punishment. Sometimes, when a person tells another why she disagrees with his viewpoints or choices, it sounds more like a punishment than an attempt to make that person understand why you have a different viewpoint.

Let's say you watch TV. One one channel, there are some great pictures of a beautiful bird. Person A goes 'wow, look at these feathers!'. Person B, a vegan, goes 'How can you enjoy looking at these feathers? This bird is captured - and unhappy that he isn't flying around in the rainforest anymore, and by the way, talking about the rainforest, did you know that [insert too much info about rainforests here], and by the way, where do you buy your coffee? Do you buy coffee? Do you know that coffee is bad for you?"

Most likely, if person A was a member of a non-vegan forum (most of them are, it's called 'the world'), he would probably list these comments in their 'Silly comments from vegans' later that day. Everything that this vegan have said may have been correct according to all his (and my) beliefs, but he could easily be considered some sort of village idiot that say all the right things, but that nobody listens to.

If people disagree with each other, IMO they don't need to 'police' each other. Communication is enough.

Perhaps it's only when we stop actively trying to influence others that we might start doing so...?

There will be plenty of opportunities even without trying. And if you really want to influence the world, harsh judgementalism on a private level won't influence more than one person anyway (and normally in the wrong direction, from the viewpoint of the 'influencer'.)

People are intuitively more concerned with the taste of food than lists of ingredients, and often focusing more on how something is said than what people say.

[Kumem]

I see what you mean about everyone having different ideas about what is right and wrong. But do you really think that those who murder, rape, steal, etc. do these things because they know they are the right things to do according to their own personal beliefs? I tend to believe that they KNOW it is wrong, and that even though they are behaving contrary to their beliefs, they do it anyway because it is what they want to do. And even if they never get caught and punished, they still suffer from wrongdoing. I do believe there is a concrete idea of what is wrong, and it involves knowingly and deliberately causing harm to others. There may be sado-masochists who enjoy being harmed, and want to share that joy with others, in which case they may have convinced themselves that hurting others without their consent is not wrong. But most of us know it is wrong to harm others, and those who go ahead and harm others anyway KNOW they are doing something wrong, or they wouldn't try to hide it or justify it afterwards.

I also think that people who eat meat KNOW at a very deep level that it is wrong, even though they won't admit it. I think this subconcious guilt is what makes them so hostile to us. People who truly live according to their beliefs, whatever they are, are without internal conflict.

Hi

I'll respond to this one because it's the only message that attempts to see a differing point of view.
I actually meant to say that rape, murder etc were considered wrong by the majority, not right or wrong, but I was typing quickly and about to go out.
I actually agree with everything that you have written Seaside. What I was trying to state in previous posts is simply that everyone does have a different idea of right and wrong. I don't mean with regards to eating meat necessarily, but in general. Perhaps I should have said that people react and act differently in situations even though they may know it is wrong. For example, everyone knows it is wrong to steal, but some people still do it.

I won't add anything to the other posts because I think that Korn pretty much summed exactly what I meant - not what people think I meant. Thanks for that Korn.

[Seaside]

Hi Kumem,
I wonder how many arguments here have been caused by simple technical things like typing in a rush or not reading a post thoroughly.

As far as judgementalism goes, I think people do a pretty good job of judging themselves, most of the time, regardless of how unable they may be to moderate their behavior. But of course, if we weren't capable of judging other people's behavior, we would all be alike, wouldn't we?

[terrace max]

IMHO being judgemental is just one component of the adversarialism which dominates our culture e.g. in our courtrooms, parliaments. It’s just a ritualised violence in which participants automatically rush to the polar opposites of fixed opinion (judgements) and thus become opponents rather than fellow travellers. I guess this system appeals to our fetish for dualism but, in reality, our society just ends up incapacitated and unable to make any real progress e.g. regarding ‘the environment’.

I’m not suggesting that dialogue is unimportant or that a mealy-mouthed correctness is any better - that just causes frustration. I just think the best thing vegans do is simply be vegan. I think any attempt at moral crusading is counter-productive and reveals stuff about those involved which is probably better left unstated.

Ultimately, I guess if you judged yourself sufficiently you would never judge others.

[eve]

terrace max, I agree with you (and I like your signature quote).

[terrace max]

Thank you Eve

[mysh]

(and I like your signature quote).

ditto.

[mysh]

This thread started off talking about the "vegan police", and that is a somewhat different concept than was assumed by some of the posts in this (very riveting) thread. The "vegan police" is used to refer to those who are "more vegan than thou". For example:

Vegan 1: "I went to a restaurant last night, where I got my standard dish. Afterwards I commented to the waiter that it tasted slightly different than usual, and the waiter said that they replaced the vegetable oil they used to use with butter. I'm really upset!"

Vegan Policeperson: "You're not a real vegan, then. You should ask for the ingredients of anything you don't cook yourself every time."

This may be an extreme example, but I want to make sure the term is properly understood. Giving guidance/advice is different. Look at posts by, for example, Korn or Conscious Cuisine to see how gently (yet firmly) vegans can be guided up another step of awareness. In every case, though, you'll find their response does not start with "you're not vegan".


The other aspect of judgementalism that has been brought up is speaking up when in conversation with an omni. I have been having some internal conflicts about this for a while. Initially, I thought that we shouldn't preach, but something about that simply didn't sit right with me. I then came to the realisation that we, as vegans, and unlike total vegetarians, have an obligation to preach. The analogy I like to use is that, if you had lived back in the days of slavery, would you have spoken up against it, or would you have said that everybody can do what they like, just you personally have chosen not to "own" any slaves? Would you be offended if you were in the house of a slave owner? Omnis seem not to see the parallels, but they are obvious if you look. And the only reasonable conclusion is that we must advocate.

The next question is how, and to that I don't have much of an answer. But I'm pretty sure (based on experience) that a full frontal assault with accusations of iredeemable evil on the part of the omni will quite effectively remove any chance you may have had to persuade them.
I always run up against one of two comments from omnis, both of which I find exceedingly frustrating, as I don't know how to respond effectively. One is "I really admire you", and the other is "I could never do that" or "I could never go without X" (where X is normally cheese, or other dairy products). The responses in my head are, respectively, "you shouldn't admire me, rather you should deplore yourself", and "you could if you cared enough." But I don't know how to actually respond without completely alienating the other person.

[Daniel]

As far as judgementalism goes, I think people do a pretty good job of judging themselves, most of the time, regardless of how unable they may be to moderate their behavior. But of course, if we weren't capable of judging other people's behavior, we would all be alike, wouldn't we?

Yes, I think people can make judgments for themselves and that's why I am in favor of people being judgmental. If people aren't judgmental, then they'll defer to other's interpretation of what is right and wrong. Adolf Hitler once said, "What good fortune for those in power that people do not think."

People have written a lot of things here that they assume about being judgmental. Rather than make an ass out of u and me, I ask that people stop making assumptions about the behavior that has no inherent connection to being judgmental.

Surely to be judgemental is to be, inevitably, condescending to some degree. It suggests an attainment of a higher level of moral certainty not enjoyed by the person you are judging.

Well, this seems very condescending in itself. Is being judgmental beneth you, terrace max? Is it really inevitable that to be judgmental is to be condescending? How is it you are so certain?

From a pragmatic point of view, judgement in any form doesn't facilitate useful dialogue. I can't help feeling what matters is what you do i.e. how you convert your moral judgement into action. It is only how we live, not what we pronounce upon, which might actually affect others. Being judgemental isn't wrong (that would be judgemental of me) it's just ineffective. When did anybody ever respond favourably to being exposed as unreasoning, unethical or whatever?

Judgment in any form doesn't facilitate useful dialogue? So much for the process of consensus-based decision-making; where everyone in a group is encouraged to be judgmental. Then we should favor the alternative where people are discouraged from being judgmental, which is called groupthink.

I personally think consensus is one of the most effective and nonviolent ways to dialogue.

It is easy for people to unquestioningly rely on authorities and experts to do their thinking and decision-making for them. If members of a group delegate their authority, intentionally or not, they fail to accept responsibility for the group's decisions. Consensus promotes and depends upon self empowerment. Anyone can express concerns. Everyone seeks creative solutions and is responsiblefor every decision. When all are encouraged to participate, the democratic nature of the process increases. --Food Not Bombs, "On Conflict and Consensus"

Groupthink on the other hand is the least effective and most prone to violent form of dialogue, IMO.

The symptoms of groupthink arise when the members of decision-making groups become motivated to avoid being too harsh in their judgments of their leaders' or their colleagues' ideas. They adopt a soft line of criticism, even in their own thinking. At their meetings, all the members are amiable and seek complete concurrence on every important issue, with no bickering or conflict to spoil the cozy, 'we-feeling' atmosphere. --Irving L. Janis, "Groupthink"

IMHO being judgemental is just one component of the adversarialism which dominates our culture e.g. in our courtrooms, parliaments. It’s just a ritualised violence in which participants automatically rush to the polar opposites of fixed opinion (judgements) and thus become opponents rather than fellow travellers. I guess this system appeals to our fetish for dualism but, in reality, our society just ends up incapacitated and unable to make any real progress e.g. regarding ‘the environment’.

This reminds me of the rant from Korn's imaginary TV view. Only, I think person A from Korn's story might have actually had a case. Consensus actually show that the opposite to be true.

Traditional nonviolence theory holds that the use of power to dominate is violent and undesirable. Nonviolence expects people to use their power to persuade without deception, coercion, or malice, using truth, creativity, logic, respect, and love. Majority rule voting process and Parliamentary Procedure both accept, and even encourage, the use of power to dominate others. The goal is the winning of the vote, often regardless of another choice which might be in the best interest of the whole group. The will of the majority supersedes the concerns and desires of the minority. This is inherently violent. Consensus strives to take into account everyone's concerns and resolve them before any decision is made. Most importantly, this process encourages an environment in which everyone is respected and all contributions are valued. --Food Not Bombs, "On Conflict and Consensus"

Being nonjudgmental creates groupthink.

Paradoxically, soft-headed groups are often hard-hearted when it comes to dealing with out-group or enemies. They find it relatively easy to resort to dehumanizing solutions--they will readily authorize bombing attacks that kill large numbers of civilians in the name of the noble cause of persuading an unfriendly government to negotiate at the peace table. They are unlikely to pursue the more difficult and controversial issues that arise when alternatives to a harsh military solution come up for discussion. Nor are they inclined to raise ethical issues that carry the implication that this fine group of ours, with its humanitarianism and its high-minded principles, might be capable of adopting a course of action that is inhumane and immoral. --Irving L. Janis, "Groupthink"

Perhaps it's only when we stop actively trying to influence others that we might start doing so...?

Oh, this is good news, because, as a full-time animal advocate, that means I don't have to work anymore. I can retire to Florida and spend my days having drinks on the beach.

Sadly, I don't think this is the case, so I'm inclined to believe that I shouldn't quite my day job just yet. Actively influencing other, or activism, is something I think everyone should be doing.

characterized by a tendency to judge harshly

"The symptoms of groupthink arise when the members of decision-making groups become motivated to avoid being too harsh in their judgments of their leaders' or their colleagues' ideas." --Irving L. Janis

"I am aware, that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire, to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; -- but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest – I will not equivocate – I will not excuse – I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD. The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal, and to hasten the resurrection of the dead." –-William Lloyd Garrison, The Liberator, January 1st, 1831.

If I'm against using violence against kids, I'm also against that you are using violence against kids. If I saw someone hit a kid, I'd definitely speak out and also try to prevent it. I would act, based on my judgement of the situation. I would be 'judgemental' in one meaning of the word, in a way which nobody, I guess, would disagree in.

Maybe you would even be harsh in you judgment in a way which nobody would disagree?

Back to being judgmental (in the 'policing' sense, whether that's the right or wrong use of the word), it's all about when and how we communicate. I can't imagine a life where I should speak out every time I see something I would have done different or someone who does something I disagree with. It's simply not possible. I live on the coast: If I should tell every fisher I see that he is a killer and every person who eats meat that he is responsible for animal abuse, there wouldn't be any time left. So it's definitely a question of WHEN, and more important: a question of HOW. If people ask me, I try to be clear about my viewpoints, but I know that people who use every opportunity to tell others how wrong they are (yes, some people seem to do that) often just make people disagree with them by this behavior.

This behavior and way of communicating has nothing inherent to do with being judgmental, and can often be the result of a lack of judgment. Forgive me for repeating myself.

It seems to me people are confusing judgments with something else. Do you mean a lack of consideration, perhaps? Well, consideration is part of being judgmental. Something is considered in the formation of a judgment. So, then, a mindful concern for others is part of being judgmental. That means eve is being judgmental when she considers how to react to Ray's fishing. If eve just shouted out "You stupid fish murderer!" with out considering what she was saying, then that would be the opposite of being judgmental.

Judging can also be about punishment. Sometimes, when a person tells another why she disagrees with his viewpoints or choices, it sounds more like a punishment than an attempt to make that person understand why you have a different viewpoint.

Then that sounds like this person is trying to be judgmental for both people. This is my point, encouraging other to be judgmental would be "an attempt to make that person understand why you have a different viewpoint." You encourage people to make judgments about different viewpoints. That's being judgmental.

I don't think that the example of the two people watching TV has to do with being judgmental. Just like being judgmental is an independent concept to punishment, it is also an independent concept to needless aggression. As you said yourself, Korn, "People are ... often focusing more on how something is said than what people say." We can only speculate about the hypothetical TV viewers, and since it is the result of one person's imagination how should I know how two imaginary people would react to each other. Perhaps these two people are having these kinds of discussions all the time, and this is a normal conversational style for them. Nevertheless, how one person communicates doesn't say much about what it means to be judgmental.

[cedarblue]

a member of our local vegan group told me today that she is considering stopping being vegan. now this lady is very into animal causes and to really stop and so cause a knock on effect for animals concerns and worries her greatly. i think she is 'policing' herself too hard. she said she just cannot spend hours on the net to find a pair of vegan shoes for herself that may not exist as she needs a very wide fit and is rarely able to find exactly what she needs. but the thought of buying non-vegan distresses her.

i myself was recently asked if my sandals were vegan. only i really need to worry about my sandals and my conscience, no one else needs to take the high ground on it.

i reminded her that we all come from different places on our vegan path and what is 'as far as is practicably possible' for one person will not be the same for another. to judge others based on ones own opinion instead of perhaps the vegan society's definition can be extremely damaging and critical.

what do others think?

[cedarblue]

p.s. daniel, do you think one can be judgemental without being critical?? and vice versa?

[Daniel]

This may be an extreme example, but I want to make sure the term is properly understood. Giving guidance/advice is different. Look at posts by, for example, Korn or Conscious Cuisine to see how gently (yet firmly) vegans can be guided up another step of awareness. In every case, though, you'll find their response does not start with "you're not vegan".

This is an extreme case, because those who "gently (yet firmly) vegans can be guided up another step of awareness," are accused of being "vegan police." The term has no positive use and is little more than an ad hominem attack. This is how I've seen the term used most often.

Person A: "Lets go to that Indian place downtown. It's all vegetarian, you know?"

Person B: "But they have butter in the rice there."

Person A: "So?"

Person B: "But I'm vegan."

Person A: "So am I."

Person B: "But butter isn't vegan. And I've talked to them about this, but they make all the rice together and they can't make any without dairy."

Person A: "Who are you to say I'm not vegan? You're acting like the Vegan Police. It's an all vegetarian restaurant. The butter in the rice is insignificant. Don't you know there are animal products in everything? The roads, bikes tires, the walls in your house. This isn't about some personal purity. Supporting this restaurant will do more to reduce suffering than your dogmatic adherence to a list of ingredients. It is people like you that make veganism look too hard, and that will stop others from going vegan. It's a waste of time to argue with a purist like you. Unlike you, I'm more interested in results."

This is NOT an extreme example. The final reply by Person A was based entirely from literature by folks who use the term "vegan police." These are well known "vegan" advocates. I put vegan in quotes, because I don't think attacking people for avoiding hidden dairy or honey is vegan advocacy. I have never seen a positive use of the term "vegan police," but I have seen it used over and over again in situations like the above. Such attacks can be sparked by the smallest thing.

The Vegan Society gives the definition for vegan, but it's up to all of us to make judgments about how to make it as "practicably possible," not only for ourselves, but the world. This is different from the organization that calls people the "vegan police."

I think some advocates have done a lot of damage by promoting the term "vegan police." These are the folks who say forget the definition of veganism, forget making your own judgments and do what we say is vegan. They have it all figured out; instead of an objective definition we can all use to make judgments for ourselves they will tell us what is or isn't vegan. Much of the response on Person A is drawn from US advocates. These are the would-be authorities who want to tell us what is veganism and what advocacy should be. If they say two and two is five, then it is true. I'm sure many people here will recognize some of the terms used by Person A.

[mysh]

This is an extreme case, because those who "gently (yet firmly) vegans can be guided up another step of awareness," are accused of being "vegan police." The term has no positive use and is little more than an ad hominem attack. This is how I've seen the term used most often.

It is an extreme, but nonetheless valid case. I have never seen Korn be accused of being vegan police despite his very strong advocacy. Of course you are right that the intent of the term is to be an ad hominem attack, and perhaps to assuage one's own guilt at the things being pointed out by said policeperson.

This is NOT an extreme example. The final reply by Person A was based entirely from literature by folks who use the term "vegan police." These are well known "vegan" advocates. I put vegan in quotes, because I don't think attacking people for avoiding hidden dairy or honey is vegan advocacy. I have never seen a positive use of the term "vegan police," but I have seen it used over and over again in situations like the above. Such attacks can be
sparked by the smallest thing.

There is the issue in your example that the butter in the rice is no longer hidden (although a real Indian restaurant would commit no such travesty!), so the "proper vegan" reaction would be to not go there. I also wouldn't knowingly wear a shirt made by a slave. But attacking people who are at least trying is foolish in the extreme. Trying to continue the education would be more appropriate.