People do not ‘leave’ veganism because it is too clear; they ‘leave’ because it was never grounded as an ethical principle or mindset in the first place. Many so-called ‘ex-vegans’ were taught – or interpreted – that veganism was a diet or a personal, flexible lifestyle choice, and never internalized animals as moral subjects. If the underlying ethical framework was never adopted, reversal is easy. That is an argument for why clarity of principle is essential.
HELEN LLOYD: At core, Veganism is about abolishing the ingrained, taught belief that animals exist ‘for us(e)’ – not merely abolishing the systemic practices that flow from that perception. Those practices are downstream effects of mindset; without that belief, they would not exist.
Veganism does not exist to be adopted by everyone in order to function. Slavery did not require most people to renounce it before it became untenable; what mattered was that it became morally indefensible. Veganism exists to define what justice requires: a moral boundary. By rejecting animal use, it lays the ethical groundwork for animal emancipation. “Vegan” is an adjective describing alignment with that principle, not an identity.
Although the word ‘vegan’ was initially introduced by Donald Watson in relation to dietary pattern, once “veganism” was defined as an ethical principle, ‘vegan’ came to function as an adjective when applied to individuals. When applied to food or practices, terms such as vegan-appropriate or vegan-suitable are perhaps more accurate.
People do not ‘leave veganism’ because it is too clear; they ‘leave’ because it was never grounded as an ethical principle or mindset in the first place. That could have resulted from unclear language, deliberate mis-framings by industries seeking to disrupt progress, and from environmental or health movements conflating plant-based dietary patterns with the adjective ‘vegan’.
It could be said that many so-called “ex-vegans” entered via health, trend, identity, or social belonging; they were taught – or interpreted – that veganism was a diet or a personal, flexible lifestyle choice, and never internalised animals as moral subjects.
So when health anxiety, social friction, or reactionary subcultures appear – including carnivore rhetoric, human supremacy narratives, and crop-death deflections – there is nothing holding the ethical position in place. That is an argument for why clarity of principle is essential… If the underlying ethical framework was never adopted, reversal is easy…
Wishing to encourage non-vegans does not require redefining veganism. Every justice movement contains non-compliers, but none dilute their principles to accommodate those who continue the injustice. We do not accommodate slave-owners by validating partial ownership… Veganism therefore needs to stop being framed as optional or flexible.
The principle is what it is. We need to maintain ethical clarity at the movement level… Veganism is not ‘stalling’ because too few people choose it. It has perhaps been weakened where some strategies and individuals prioritised palatability over moral clarity – and decades of progress were affected… We need unapologetic clarity that does not centre humans: the principle centres the victims. SOURCE
RELATED VIDEO: