Minimal Non-Veganism and Slaughterhouses

## Veganism and Minimal Non-Veganism

Non-veganism, as a position, is denoted by being any position that isn't a vegan position. There are many possible positions on animal ethics that would be defined as non-vegan. The farthest and most severe non-vegan position would be one of considering both of the following:

1) Animals have no intrinsic value whatsoever.

2) In no way can any action we proceed with involving animals ever be considered wrong.

I will call this "**Maximum Non-Veganism**".

However, what I want to focus on here is "**Minimal Non-Veganism**", which is:

"The position that is as close to a vegan as possible without actually being a vegan."

Now, nailing down specifically what the Minimal Non-Vegan is will be difficult as Vegans themselves often disagree about what counts or does not count as vegan. For instance, some Vegans will consider eating eggs from a pet chicken that is well looked after, while abstaining from all other animal-based products, Vegan. Other Vegans will consider this exploitation and will not consider it Vegan. So here, we see the Minimal Non-Vegan position fluctuate. If the Vegan position considers the high welfare backyard chicken egg-eater non-vegan, the Minimal Non-Vegan could be said to be a high welfare backyard chicken egg-eater while participating in no other non-vegan activities.

As this would only confuse the discussion by not really understanding what I mean by a Minimal Non-Vegan, I will introduce another category of being:

**Simplified Minimal Non-Veganism (SMNV)**

This position will be noted as the following: "The position that minimally supports a view that the majority of all vegans would agree is non-vegan."

I'll denote this position specifically with this view:

A sort of person who, on moral grounds, avoids all animal products except once a year goes fishing, pulls out a fish, painlessly kills it and eats it.

This may be an odd position, but here the how and why's are not too important, so long as we agree it's logically possible and minimally non-vegan.

The first thing to observe here is that the range of positions from the Maximum Non-Vegan to the Simplified Non-Vegan is huge. While neither of these positions realistically depicts many people who actually exist, they will be conceptually useful moving forward.

## Slaughterhouse footage

One of the more convincing methodologies for people to become vegan is to be confronted with slaughterhouse footage like Earthlings and Dominion. The challenge here becomes how to feel about what you now perceive\* you support. Many non-vegans will find the footage disgusting and impossible for them to defend.

\*I have no idea how reflective these documentaries are of the average slaughterhouse, both worldwide or locally.

Often, what then occurs, if a vegan is showing a non-vegan the footage, is to suggest that veganism is the alternative to supporting slaughterhouse footage. While, of course, it is *An* alternative to supporting slaughterhouse footage, it is, of course, not the only position.

Here we can create another position:

**Maximally Non-Vegan Anti-Slaughterhouse Footage (MNVASF)**

This position is noted as the following:

As far away as possible from the vegan position while not supporting footage shown to them in documentaries such as Earthlings/Dominion.

We might expect such a position to be something akin to:

"I think slaughterhouses in principle are okay but should have standards that provide quick deaths and take steps to not allow workers to hurt animals other than killing them for food."

Here, again, we will see a range of positions from MNVASF to Vegan. Here in this simplistic paint drawing, I show the different positions along a line.

What I wish to call attention to is that there is a wide variety of non-vegan positions (anything between MNVASF to SMNV) that will disagree that the correct response to watching slaughterhouse footage and finding it disagreeable leads to veganism. Those that try to convince others to veganism from slaughterhouse documentaries try and avoid conversation about all other possible in-between positions, lest they lower the odds of being convincing. If someone had truly never considered in-between positions, that may be understandable. Those that have, however, are being intentionally deceptive.

### Actual Reasons for Opposition to Slaughthouse Footage

It's hard to know why any particular person has adverse reactions to slaughterhouse footage. I suspect it could be very different for each individual person and yet probably similar in other ways. I could offer many possible positions:

1) People shouldn't be sadistic and derive enjoyment from causing pain directly.

2) Mammals are of moral value to prevent them from being killed/eaten.

3) Slaughterhouses are an 'unnatural' way of killing animals.

4) Farm animals are too intelligent to be killed (yet other animals are not).

5) The welfare is too low (but would be fine if increased)

6) It is always wrong to kill and eat sentient life outside of survival situations (And all animals are sentient)

There are many possible answers to this question and an adverse reaction to slaughterhouse footage, does not, in itself, tell you which of these would be true of you. I would suggest, however, that if you think of the SMNV position is not an immoral position, then 6) is not your answer, and you are not a vegan.