9/2/11

Veganish or Vegetarian?

my favorite cookbook - full of fantastic vegan and vegetarian recipes
Carpe Vegan is a new (pretty new?) organization and website that stands for animal activism and tolerant veganism. Here's some smart stuff from a post called "All Birthday Cake and Alcohol is Vegan"--
If someone smokes a pack of cigarettes a day, they’re clearly a smoker; but if, once or twice a year, they get drunk at a party and smoke a cigar, then they’re a non-smoker who smokes every once in a while. We propose a similar way of thinking for veganism: if 95%’ish of the time you’re vegan, you’re vegan or veganish.
Do you see Catholics kicking members out for using birth control? Do you see Mormons 86’ing members who drink beer or coffee? How about public shaming of Jews who don’t eat kosher? And, these are effin religions! Hell, veganism isn’t even supposed to be a religion but we set far stricter criteria and far higher standards to live by. And we don’t offer an after-life, heaven, or any other nifty parting goods for participating.
And, by the way, what is the real difference between someone who eats 100% vegan vs someone whose dietary intake is 95% vegan? Does the difference really mean less animal suffering? Depends, but if the difference is just lots of misc ingredients in various meals during a given year, that is probably not the case.
In a world that is so crazy, so cruel, and so barbaric, why is it that so many vegans are hardest on fellow vegans who don’t meet the mythical standards of strict vegan? 
Good quesion!

But now, what about vegetarians?  I nearly jumped when I saw this post--"Let's kill Vegetarian!  Why Vegetarianism must go and VeganISH should ascend"?  Phew, no, it doesn't say "Let's kill VegetarianS"!  But Joe Haptas has a problem with vegetarianism ... as they say.

His main point is that vegetarianism is not a coherent ethical stance.  In some cultural settings (rural India?)  it might make sense to think "meat bad, milk-and-eggs not bad."  After all, meat inevitably involves killing, and milk/eggs could be obtained with no killing and no cruelty.  However in developed countries, that's not how things work. There's massive cruelty behind meat, but also behind dairy products and eggs.  So vegetarianism couldn't possibly make sense as an ethical stance. If you can't be a perfect vegan (and few can), at least be veganISH, not vegetarian, he says.

But hold on. Yes, these points about eggs and dairy are important, yes, many omnivores don't know them.  The uneducated omnivore might imagine eggs and dairy are innocent, so vegetarians have done all that is morally important, by giving up meat.  This is a mind-set I do encounter frequently when I teach my course on animal rights. But people who actually take the step to become vegetarian have typically done a lot of research first and the facts about eggs and dairy are widely available.  Vegetarians know that eggs and dairy aren't innocent.  They consume eggs and dairy because (basically) vegetarianism is their way of being vegan(very)ish.

There are other ways, of course. You can just be a randomly erring vegan, lapsing at parties, or on special occasions, or by not reading labels, or when the spirit moves you, but there's something to be said for being a consistent vegetarian, not a frequently lapsing vegan. Vegetarianism is not (usually) driven by a mistake (the mistake of thinking eggs and milk don't matter), but partly by animal impact facts, and party by psychological considerations.

Vegetarianism is OK!  Reason #1 - Animal impact

Here's what I wrote about this a while back--
If you eat chicken all year, the cost in chicken lives is 25-50.  All those chickens will have endured what chickens go through to wind up on our plates--which is a lot if they were ordinary factory farmed chickens, though less, if they weren't. If you eat cage-free eggs all year, roughly one laying hen went through those same things, plus one male chick was killed (since the males have no economic value).  That makes it a very rational choice to give up chicken first, before eggs.

If you think through the costs to animals and the environment of beef vs. milk, you will come to the same conclusion. Ideally, we should give up both.  If you're not up to that, then your first priority should be giving up beef.
Now, there are other two-way decisions where things will come out differently.  What if it's a choice between eggs and beef?  If 10 people collectively decide between a year of egg-eating and a year of beef-eating, they will certainly kill less and cause less suffering if they eat beef.  20 chickens will die for the eggs, and maybe just one steer for the beef.  Plus, the steer will have a more enjoyable year. So an eggless beef-eater would be in finer moral fettle than a beefless egg-eater.

What if it's a choice between an omnivorous diet including a little meat, eggs, and dairy, and a vegetarian diet that's non-stop eggs and dairy? Again, the vegetarian diet isn't morally superior.

To ward off these arguments about egg-free beef eaters and eggs/dairy-crazy vegetarians, we've got to be a little more precise (is this getting excruciating?).  A vegetarian diet of the sort real vegetarians typically eat--low in eggs and dairy (and with humane options chosen when possible)--is less harmful to animals than the standard omnivorous diet.  There.  That's the claim, and I think it's true. 

Vegetarianism is OK!  Reason #2 - Motivation and Sustainability

If you're going to adopt a challenging diet, psychology matters.  An imperfect diet that you can maintain for decades or even a lifetime does more good than a perfect diet that you maintain just for a year.  Vegetarianism is, I think, more sustainable than veganism or even veganishism, at least for many people.  That, not ignorance about the impact of eggs and dairy, is presumably why there are far more vegetarians than vegans.

First, meat is actually easier to give up, and keep giving up, than eggs and milk.  Meat inherently and obviously involves killing. You can see that, so finding meat repellent comes easily. That's motivating. Second, eggs and milk are everywhere, so abstaining from them requires a global change of diet. It's a much harder thing to do, on a long-term basis. 

The -ish in being veganish might make the diet less sustainable than a vegetarian diet, depending on what sort of -ish is involved.  Suppose you reject the distinction between meat and eggs/dairy.  So you're anti-vegetarian about your -ish.   Your lapses include occasionally eating a hamburger or pepperoni on your pizza, or whatever you fancy.  One lapse might lead to another, because you've reminded your taste buds of these possibilities.

It's also self-reinforcing to have a set of rules and take pride in being able to follow them consistently. The lapsing vegan may ultimately get tired of feeling so fallen.

**

I think Carpe Vegan has a very helpful message for vegans.  The main message is about tolerance and inclusivity--about not giving up just because you're "only" veganish.  I can even accept that vegetarians are the ugly stepsisters of vegans, veganish or otherwise.  But we're not naive, not unprincipled, and not not-helping.  We're drawing a line in a place where it actually makes sense to draw it--both in terms of animal impact and human psychology.  Vegetarians are imperfect, certainly, but have good reasons for their particular way of being imperfect. 


p.s.  I just had a look at the contributors list at Carpe Vegan and found Rhys Southan's name on it. Well that's interesting!  Rhys is also my favorite bad ex-vegan.  His blog (Let Them Eat Meat ... no, no, wrong conclusion!)  is constantly smart and frequently hilarious.


4 comments:

Faust said...

I agree with this post. The end.

Wayne said...

But isn't a lapsing vegetarian more harmful than a lapsing vegan? I guess it depends on the lapse....

Last summer I lapsed for the first time (I count a lapse as I willfully ingested, rather than unknowing ingested). It was my friend's bachelor party, we went out for sushi. I had a bunch of veg sushi, and I had one piece of freshwater eel. *gasp*

But that means in some sense, I supported the killing of an eel. But when a Vegan lapses, they have helped support the inhumane treatment of an egg laying hen or milking cow (or maybe bees?).

I didn't really feel fallen when I lapsed though, but maybe I'm just a robot. I ate some meat, shrugged it off, and onwards I go as a vegetarian.

As for veganism... I know it would be the better thing to do. But its hard when you live with people who will not budge on the milk and dairy front. But I never was that much in to dairy to begin with.

When I heard that Clinton had gone vegan, I felt a pang of guilt. But exactly how bad of a person am I if I am not a vegan? Is it a supererogatory duty, and maybe vegetarianism is just a basic duty? Or are both supererogatory?

Jean Kazez said...

Yes, the fact that Clinton has gone vegan does give me a pang. But he did it purely for health reasons, didn't he? It's got to be much easier to abstain from food X if you think eating X is going to kill you.

As for lapsing--I think it's much easier to be a consistent vegetarian than to be a consistent vegan. So the feeling of lapsing is going to be rarer. That might make the whole thing more comfortable and sustainable--if you don't like the feeling of lapsing. Then again, Carpe Diem is trying to sell people on the idea that "ish" is OK. If you can get comfortable with "ish" this particular argument falls apart.

SpeciesistVegan said...

"A vegetarian diet of the sort real vegetarians typically eat--low in eggs and dairy... is less harmful to animals than the standard omnivorous diet."

*I agree that the standard vegetarian diet is less harmful to animals than the standard omnivorous diet. But I disagree that the standard vegetarian diet is "low" in eggs and dairy. As you point out, "eggs and milk are everywhere, so abstaining from them requires a global change of diet." The only vegetarians that I know that eat "low" amounts of eggs and dairy are ones that are "trending vegan" or who are making a conscious effort to progress toward veganism or who are, like you, very conscious of the ethical problems surrounding eggs and dairy. You (and my wife) I think are in this latter group, and I think you have a lot more in common with people ho are veganish than you might think. You're just coming at it from different sides. If I remember correctly, you view being vegetarian as supererogatory (as do I), so you probably just view eating low-egg and low-dairy as just taking it even further, right?

Well, the thing is, it's possible to be vegan (or veganish) AND believe that being vegan is a supererogatory act. I am an example of the former (or the latter, depending on how you want to look at it). I am "vegan" yet I am okay with people being veganish (and I even eat non-vegan food from time to time - although it's usually freegan). You're probably just so used to people for arguing for veganism as a moral obligation that you maybe haven't considered this possibility. So, really, there is not necessarily as much difference between a "veganish" vegan and someone like yourself as you might think.

"Vegetarianism is, I think, more sustainable than veganism or even veganishism, at least for many people. One lapse might lead to another, because you've reminded your taste buds of these possibilities. It's also self-reinforcing to have a set of rules and take pride in being able to follow them consistently. The lapsing vegan may ultimately get tired of feeling so fallen."

*You already hit on this in your last comment on this post, but let me just elaborate on it. If one accepts that veganish is okay, eating some dairy or eggs is not a lapse any more than you eating dairy or eggs is a lapse. Once can be veganish and still have a set of rules and take pride in being able to follow them consistently. It's just that it's YOUR set of rules and it's going to differ from someone else's. Maybe a veganish person would be more of an "alcohol and birthday cake" kind of person, whereas maybe you would be more of an "omelet on Saturday mornings and butter on my bagel" kind of veganish. In practical terms, it really might not make that much of a difference. Maybe a veganish person gets 5% of his overall calories from non-vegan sources and maybe you get 10%. Is that really that big of a difference?

*We're drawing a line in a place where it actually makes sense to draw it--both in terms of animal impact and human psychology. Vegetarians are imperfect, certainly, but have good reasons for their particular way of being imperfect."

*I think you might like my recent post about drawing lines. Actually, I think you might find that we have a lot in common when it comes to thinking about the ethics of veg*anism. Speciesist vegans, veganish people, low-egg/dairy vegetarians - I think a lot of us have way more in common with each other than any of us have in common with abolitionist vegans.

To Wayne: I believe both are supererogatory.