Vegantarian: are you a sufficiently ethical vegan?
“Am I sufficiently vegan?”, I asked myself after reading a great blog article on the Conversation by Dominic Wilkinson. I encourage every person eating plant-based to do the same. “Questioning is the piety of thought”, in the words of Heiddeger, the 20th century German philosopher.
On this journey of embracing the diet and lifestyle of wanting to reduce pain and suffering in all sentient beings, one is generally confronted with several counterarguments. The most ridiculous ones go as far as proposing that plants have feelings too.
So, where do WE draw the line?
That depends on the position you choose to take.
How did you react to the claim that almonds and avocados are not vegan? Did you have a moment of “Oh my god, I didn’t know”, justifying your ignorance with the lack of knowledge and later going down the spiral of “I am not a good enough vegan”. I hear a hint of shame in that, don’t you?
How do we get out of this guilt-tripping? Simple, take a stance of where your moral and ethical beliefs lie and draw a line. Use the rational brain instead of surrendering to the unpredictable and irrational monkey brain.
Did you choose a plant-based diet because it was the right thing to do for the animals, the environment and even your own wellbeing? Your choice falls under the non-consequentialist viewpoint: the decision and action to think certain way is right or wrong by itself. But there is more to it than that. This ethical viewpoint values rationality and consistency, yet this does not mean rigidity. So, once you make the stance you apply it universally to yourself and others — no exceptions. Let’s look into this. Hypothetically, eating no meat is the right choice for the animals, the environment and your well-being as well — and if you want to live in the world where all is well, you ought to eat less/no meat. In a categorical scenario, eating less/no meat is the only right way for creating a “better” world. This can easily translate to a rigid and dogmatic stance but a true non-consequentialist is always questioning and evolving his understanding which impacts his moral judgment.
While another popular choice is to adopt this way of eating in order to minimise the consequences — the pain and suffering that animals experience. This is the consequentialist view: focusing on the results (e.g. the reduction of pain and suffering in animals) of the action.
There are some problems that the consequentialist’s ethical stance holds:
- It’s hard to predict the future consequences of actions and this evaluation is biased because you are assessing your own behaviour.
- Choosing which factors determine the “goodness” of consequences of the behaviour is complicated.
- Groups of people across in the society may experience different consequences. For example, meat farmers would experience negative consequences on their annual produce sales if suddenly everyone who went vegan and stopped buying meat.
The third and a very common position focuses on reducing animal suffering and killing AND the environmental impact. Wilkinson proposes a sufficientarian approach to dealing with this ethical dilemma: we don’t need to be the best, picture perfect vegans — being sufficiently vegan is enough. In other words, drawing a line where the benefits of eating a vegan diet do not interfere with our daily life. And where you draw the line is completely up to you!
Where do YOU draw the line?
