Philosophical Vegan Forum

I... just don't know... I consider myself a very simple minded person. I like simple things, while I don't like when people complicate them. I believe that veganism can be so simple, yet, the movement seems to complicate it too much. I do not know until what extent words are very important or relevant, or if regular folks really understand their meaning and their scope. I know that we sometimes use words, without really understanding them, does that really matter? So, risking a bit to seem preachy, here are some definitions (according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary in my phone):

Religion:
1. the BELIEF in a god or group of gods
2. an organized system of BELIEFS, ceremonias, and RULES used to worship a god or a group of gods
3. an interest, a BELIEF, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
Moral:
1. concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior
2. based on what you THINK is right and good
3. CONSIDERED right and good by most people
4. agreeing with a STANDARD of right behavior
Ethic:
1. rules and behavior based on IDEAS about what is morally good and bad
2. an area of STUDY that deals with ideas about what is good and bad behavior
3. a branch of PHILOSOPHY dealing with what is morally right and wrong
4. a BELIEF that something is very important
Philosophy:
1. the STUDY of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.
2. a particular set of IDEAS about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.
3. a set of IDEAS about how to do something or how to live.

So, why did I write this definitions down? Mainly because I believe that, when in doubt, go back to basics. As you can see, there is a relationship between all these concepts, and there is a degradation from religión to philosophy on what people belief and what they know. Therein lies the difference between faith and certainty. However, the people that defined veganism, did it using one of those words, and they chose Philosophy. And notice that the concept goes beyond moral and ethics. It is not a matter of believing that exploiting, being cruel, or generally speaking using and abusing them is wrong. It is a matter of KNOWING that is wrong. finding the truth about those practices. Is it a matter that veganism seek to raise moral or ethic standards of today's society? I do not think so. In the end, people should act on what they know, not on what others tell you it is right or wrong. The point of all this, is that I just dislike some discussions inside the vegan community about veganism being the new ethical or moral standards. I think we should just go beyond that.

There seems to be a very thin line between religion and philosophy in the minds of many people. They get mixed up all the time. I would say that most people get their morals from their religion since religions claim to have a monopoly on morality.

Veganism is interesting because of the variety of different reasons people go vegan. The primary ones being those who do it for health and those who do it to avoid killing animals.

exactly Chandler, people confuse these terms because they can be so similar, yet different at the same time. I did too and that is why I had to look for the definitions down.

There's not anything "beyond" moral/ethical standards.

You might want to look into the Is-ought problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

In order to say something is wrong, we have to do it within the context of an ethical/moral system. Much as, when we say 2+2=4, we do so within the context of mathematical axioms.

Morality isn't just dogma as religions would say, and it's not just opinion as relativists would say: It's something else, a concept, much like mathematics.

We can say, "Given what we know to be factually true, if you want to do the right thing in accordance with a coherent moral standard, you should do/not do X"
We can shorten that to "you should do/not do X", or "X is good/bad".
That isn't beyond morality or ethics; that's the very distillation of it. And Ethics are the height of practical philosophy.


Also: Nobody really goes vegan for health reasons. There is no apparent health benefit for not using leather, or not hunting, for example.
True by-the-definition veganism is about ethics. That's what they meant when they said "philosophy".

Of course, people can go 'vegan' in the common and inaccurate sense for health reasons (or more accurately, dietary vegan, or follow a vegan diet), and that's great too.

I wrote that those concepts are highly related, there is a relationship between them. Religion, Moral, Ethics, Philosophy. The definitions can be very similar, and Ethic even uses the word Philosophy to define itself, also quite contradictory (from my perspective on what I understand about the terms), it also uses the word Belief.

The four terms could be seen as definitions of laws for us humans to behave. The difference would be, where do those laws come from. Do they come from a god? from human thought? from social agreement? or from understanding? And that is where they differ, I understand. Veganism comes from knowledge and understanding that the human dependency on animals have to end.

Granted, you don't go fully vegan for health reasons, but you can go fully vegan for human issues. The only reason I am vegan, is to show that it is possible. That it can be done. Not because animals are sentient, or I believe in the "thou shall not kill animals" dogma that the vegan movement want to impose. but because using animals is a bad example for others.

As science has pseudoscience, philosophy has pseudophilosophy. The difference is that academic philosophy is accepting of pseudophilosophy, and it's unpopular to make the distinction.

Religion is, of course, pseudophilosophy. A number of moral/ethical frameworks are also pseudophilosophy, wherein they rely on internally contradictory premises and asserted dogma.

Going vegan to set a good example for other humans IS doing it for ethical/moral reasons, certainly. Why would you want to set a good example, other than it being the right thing for others to do?

BrimstoneSalad well, that might be. I agree that doing it to set an example might be parts of ethics. But that does not mean veganism is trying to set a new set of ethics. Setting an example is already a part of today's society, and that is fine. But the vegan movement seems to try to set new rules like "though shall not kill animals" or "animals are more important tan humans" and many other nonsensical arguments used to spread the vegan message. That is what I consider irrelevant to veganism. Those things are completely apart from the vegan definition or goals.

"Veganism" is a conclusion following from ethics (sometimes from erroneous ethics, invalid reasoning, and false premises, sometimes soundly). It is not any one single ethic itself.
A Christian can become vegan based on theological ethics, or personal secular ones.
A vegan could be vegan because of irrational deontology, or more rational consequentialism -- utilitarian, virtue, altruistic, or others.
A neonazi could even be vegan based on his or her bizarre ethical code.

Some ethics leading to veganism are sound, most aren't. Most are pseudophilosophy. But as the saying goes "all roads lead to Rome"; people can come to the same conclusion from their ethical beliefs (whether they're rational or not) without holding the same ethical beliefs.

That said, we shouldn't necessarily celebrate that fact in all cases. The promulgation of deontology to promote veganism is probably bad. Likewise, we might not want to be in bed with the neonazis and see them advocating veganism.

vegan81vzla wrote:But that does not mean veganism is trying to set a new set of ethics.

In most cases, it may be adequate merely to suggest people be consistent with the ethics they already hold.

vegan81vzla wrote:But the vegan movement seems to try to set new rules like "though shall not kill animals" or "animals are more important tan humans" and many other nonsensical arguments used to spread the vegan message.

Some people try to do things like that. You're probably talking about the deontologists. Consequentialists are making rational arguments in favor of veganism using evidence rather than dictating rules.
You should read the thread on deontology.

Very very few people if any are ever advocating that "animals are more important than humans"; I don't know where you have heard that. I think you're misrepresenting even deontologists there.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Very very few people if any are ever advocating that "animals are more important than humans";

I just read those very words on a vegan Facebook page 10 minutes ago

xxxxxxxxxxxx At least Cecil had a good life until he was murdered. Anyways, I think this is a great opportunity to show people how hypocritical they are.
Yesterday at 7:44am · Like

xxxxxxxxx The human mind is easily influenced by the popular mass.
http://countercurrentnews.com/.../why-is-america.../

Why Is America Outraged For Cecil The Lion, But Not For Sandra Bland?
Can someone - anyone - please explain why America...
COUNTERCURRENTNEWS.COM
19 hrs · Like

xxxxxxx Because animals are far more more important than humans
5 hrs · Like

Jebus wrote: I just read those very words on a vegan Facebook page 10 minutes ago

xxxxxxx Because animals are far more more important than humans
5 hrs · Like

Your sarcasm detector is faulty. That was somebody making fun of it.

I don't think I've ever seriously heard a vegan advocate that notion.
Of course, in practice even many carnists act like that, in caring about a single heart wrenching story of a dog or something, and ignoring the daily mass starvation going on.