Veganism Definition

Describing what Vegan and Veganism is, is itself a difficult task. When it comes to ideological stances and who can speak for the "correct" meaning, there are a few ways you can go about that. One is to take the definition of the one who coined it as correct.

## Etymology

Veganism was first coined by Donald Watson as a departure from vegetarianism by rejecting dairy products. It originally meant nothing more than "a non-dairy vegetarian". Of course, this doesn't quite capture what vegans and even Donald really meant. It didn't cover things like leather, for instance. As an update to this, soon after came the definition: "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals". While this gets much closer to the spirit of Veganism, this too has conceptual flaws that mostly revolve around the idea of "exploitation".

Exploitation does describe what a lot of issues that Vegans take issue with. It's sort of the idea that we are making an unfair exchange with animals. Or, perhaps, some may describe it as taking benefit without consent. Still, such understandings are a bit confusing. If someone falls and it causes another to laugh, have they exploited them? If it's about the unfairness, what if the animals were treated perfectly well (An exchange of food/shelter), and only excess dairy products were taken? This would have failed to capture the first intentions of a "Non-dairy vegetarian". And what simply of just not taking anything from animals at all? What about abuse and harm for no benefit?

The last conceptual problem here, and probably the most striking, is that humans relationships with nature tend to always be lopsided in our favor. Even if we don't raise and slaughter animals, or take excess products like milk, our simply existence of building homes/society, using products and just general living comes at an unfair, unconsented cost to animals. Is that not exploitation? It becomes unclear what understanding of exploitation is being used when such issues are presented.

It's with this in mind that the Vegan Society uses its oft-quoted definition:

Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.

This seems to address the last issue, in that it gives human beings some allowance to go about a normal life while also abstaining from animal products as mentioned above. Yet still, this definition has become a landmine of false and confusing expectations. What do you mean by possible? A lot of things are possible. It may not be possible for me to jump to the moon, but it certainly seems possible that I become a hermit in a cave somewhere. I could stop contributing to society, or do so in the absolute most minimalist ways. I could forgo cars, eat the bare minimum of whatever the least harmful vegetables are needed to keep me alive, spend my time watching where I walk, wear the minimum of new clothes, not purchase electronics or entertainment devices. I could even possibly kill myself. Asking for what is *possible* doesn't seem to be very restrictive. How about practicable? What does that really mean? That I could continuously repeat it in day to day life? Most of the examples up top are practicable, just difficult. Maybe we can find a way to say suicide no longer counts (Unless we want to argue that you can practice, day in and day out, being dead) but what about one-time situations? Can I stab this emu in the eye, since not-stabbing emu's in the eye isn't something I can practice (I only come to the zoo every 5 years after all)?

This particular definition has really dug Vegans into a difficult position of having to define what is and isn't possible, why they think that is the case and in my opinion, often looking like they are arbitrarily defining limitations of what they feel like doing. It's not a strong look for the movement and the older definition, even with its conceptual flaws, doesn't seem to fall into the same pit. While it may be tempting to replace "possible and practicable" with "reasonable" (Something that is harder to show how it's clearly inaccurate), it'd be even harder to say what is reasonable and why. Whose reason? Such an understanding will lead to people emoting at each other as though they were having a productive conversation but much more likely just expressing what they *feel* like doing and what types of society-based pleasures they wish not to do without.

It seems the words carry some sort of spirit or idea but again fail to be accurate in describing what the heck Vegans and Veganism are.

## Definitions By Use

For me, the more satisfying way to understand something is to describe it based on the types of things Vegans say. What commonalities do they share? What ideas seem to unite them? I recognize for some, however, this top-down way of descriptivism seems more like posthoc rationalization. It's my belief though that this is human nature.

### Dietary Veganism? Environmental Veganism? Ethical Veganism?

Many people I have interacted with over the last 2 years on this topic would certainly call themselves Ethical Vegan and many of those people exclaim as well that only an ethical vegan is an actual vegan. It's not my place to say who is right or wrong here, but it should be noted that there are many people who call themselves dietary vegans or environmental vegans out in the world who simply don't take the ethical stance. If I was to define Veganism based on its usage, I could only comment and say that the movement and label is not entirely united.

Still, I can't help but agree that unless one takes an ethical stance it doesn't really capture much of what the essence of what vegans seem to be expressing. The environmental vegan would go back to eating meat if they found it ecologically sustainable/beneficial. The dietary vegan would perhaps continue eating meat if physiological benefits could be found. The ethical vegan would seem to need a sincere change in character/beliefs.

#### Ethical Veganism

When it comes to the Ethical Vegans, I admit, I often have a hard time understanding what similarities that they all share. In general, any situation where an animal is bred, raised and killed and a human benefits seem to be against the view. Most of the time. I have seen some utilitarian vegans admit that if the welfare of an animal could be improved enough, the lifespan kept long enough then killing them for food could be acceptable. Most, however, will not accept that. (Many missing the point by saying "That's not economically viable! That isn't what actually happens!")

In addition, it seems most vegans do consider living in society the way we do to be acceptable, regardless of the costs it takes on nature and other animals. It isn't immoral to drive, purchase electronics and build a new theater, even if you need to destroy a few trees that homed animals. There seems to be something based on intentions or products that needs to account for these differences. Many positions become grey areas as well. Are pets okay? Some say yes, some say no. Medical testing? Blind-aid dogs? Police dogs? Given the lack of any clear understandable definition of what veganism is, you'll tend to find much disagreement in these areas. Some consider any interaction with animals to be avoided, others may focus only on the utility and others still focus on the intentions and virtues of those who go about doing so. This is nothing new in ethical discussions and not something that hinders only vegan discussion, but because veganism is itself an exploration of moral ideas it certainly finds itself riddled with these age-old issues.

#### My personal definition

"Veganism is a way of life that seeks to place the value of animal life, health and liberty above the value of substitutable classes of goods, services and uses derived from animals"

I think my definition serves as something *minimally and accurately correct*. Veganism can mean so much more to so many people and I don't deny that but I do think I present something that at least some bare minimum every vegan agrees on. The words "Substitutable classes" does a lot of work here and is probably the most attackable element in the description. While, for instance, steak may not be a *replaceable object,* one could argue it exists in the class of "food", which in fact could be replaced by non-animal products. Things like medical testing might be justified if we don't have a suitable replacement, but would become a moral imperative as soon as there was (say computer modeling or unconscious replicas).

Still, what counts as a class and what counts as an object could still come into dispute. It's still the best I have and to be honest, the best I've seen on offer.