We wouldn’t say that someone isn’t a Christian or ethical person just because they have committed a sin or unethical action. We can think of veganism in the same vein. We should commit ourselves to consistency, but non-vegan actions do not suddenly strip someone of a vegan identity. What matters most is not losing sight of the philosophy and goal of veganism, which is to respect the interests of all sentient beings.
SAM WOOLFE: The Vegan Society defines veganism as “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.” Ethical vegans may be divided along welfarist and animal rights lines. The former want to improve conditions for non-human animals and minimise suffering, but allow for other species to be owned and used, so long as ‘humane’ guidelines are followed.
The latter, on the other hand, argue that the abolition of animal exploitation is the only way forward and the only message worth promoting, given the wrongness of using, exploiting, and commodifying non-human animals, which amounts to violations of both positive rights (e.g. their right to life, liberty, and ability to express natural behaviours) and negative rights (e.g. freedom from torture, not to be harmed unnecessarily, and not to be treated as property and resources). Some ethical vegans may also believe in the abolitionist goal but support welfarist measures as stepping stones towards that goal (since stopping the most extreme forms of suffering is still considered a high-priority aim).
Yet there can be a tendency amongst vegans of all philosophical bents – although, likely amongst animal rights advocates more so than welfarist vegans – to treat veganism as a matter of personal purity. The Vegan Society’s definition of veganism includes the phrase “as far as is possible and practicable” because this recognises that vegans live in a non-vegan world (making up only 1-2% of the UK population, for example).
The terms ‘possible’ and ‘practicable’ may be somewhat ambiguous and deserve explaining, but they do not mean being vegan only if it is convenient. Many countries and cities are very vegan-friendly nowadays, so switching to a vegan lifestyle – while a major change in lifestyle – can seem relatively easy, and not much of a sacrifice at all. However, there are also many vegans who live in a non-vegan-friendly family, culture, or society, and they are not phased by the trouble or effort involved in maintaining a healthy vegan diet. This kind of commitment can be seen to be feasible, in line with the Vegan Society’s definition of veganism.
Others, meanwhile, may find that there are some especially inconvenient or tricky circumstances which make being 100% vegan not practicable, sometimes because of purported costs to personal physical and mental health; although making use of technology (e.g. to find places to eat if abroad), being prepared, and planning a vegan diet well can often circumvent these issues.
There are many kinds of instances, nonetheless, in which an ethical vegan may feel they’ve betrayed the philosophy and failed to live up to a standard of personal purity. This can amount to a kind of perfectionism which, although resembling moral consistency, can entail mental health costs to the individual. Being consistent when it comes to veganism – making it a habit to avoid supporting animal suffering and exploitation wherever possible – is, clearly, what being a vegan is all about. This commitment may seem commendable to non-vegans but to vegans, it can seem like the bare minimum – the moral baseline – you would follow as someone who is morally opposed to animal exploitation. (Activism, outreach, campaigning, advocacy, volunteering, voting, charity work, and donating to relevant causes may also be seen by those in the vegan community as necessary for achieving desired aims.)
However, the decision to be consistent – and putting in the effort to be consistent – doesn’t mean mistakes, slip-ups, and accidents won’t occur, which can easily happen in a non-vegan world, no matter how careful a vegan is trying to be. Potential mental health costs come, though, when someone strongly attaches to veganism a personal identity and a need to be perfect in order to uphold that identity…
On the perceived issue of not being vegan anymore following a slip-up… it’s useful to use an analogy here. We wouldn’t say that someone isn’t a religious or ethical person just because they have committed a sin or unethical action – or many such actions – in their lifetime. One can still maintain a religious identity (e.g. being a Christian) or a moral identity (e.g. being a virtuous person) even if some actions are not aligned with, say, Christianity or moral virtues that one values.
We can think of veganism in the same vein. We should commit ourselves to consistency, but non-vegan actions – which are hard to agree upon, in any case – do not suddenly strip someone of a vegan identity. What matters most is not losing sight of the philosophy and goal of veganism, which is to respect the interests of all sentient beings. And we do this effectively by showing compassion and encouragement to ourselves and others who hold this belief, rather than giving in to condemnation when mistakes are made. Vegans, like anyone else, are morally imperfect. Being able to accept and move past our mistakes, while still wanting to avoid making them again, is necessary for living a moral life that is healthy and personally fulfilling. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEO: