I consider myself to be a vegan. I also consider it to be vegan to consume many animals. I take veganism to be a philosophy and way of life that is against cruelty to, and exploitation of, sentient beings. There are many animals which are unlikely to be sentient due to the simplicity of their nervous systems, the simplicity of their brains (many animals lack a brain), and the simplicity of their behaviors.
Many vegans point to the Vegan Society's definition of veganism which uses the word, "animals," as opposed to, "sentient beings." I think that harping on this definition is wrong for a couple reasons.
Firstly, veganism is defined by the ideology it stands for, not by the definition that attempts to describe the ideology. Definitions can be inaccurate or incomplete. This would be a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad dictionarium.
Secondly, it makes sense why the Vegan Society would choose to slightly inaccurately define veganism. It's easier to say, "animals," than, "sentient beings," because it's undeniable which beings are animals, while it can be very difficult to know which animals are sentient beings. Therefore, by saying, "animals," we can capture all the beings we care about, even if we include some of the animals we don't care about.
This has two issues. Firstly, for our more dogmatic vegan friends, they will choose to cling to the exact wording of the definition which means that they'll consider a vegan who uses a sponge or eats bivalves to be non-vegan. Many vegans consider these things to not be vegan according to the Vegan Society's definition of veganism. However, they are surely vegan according to the philosophy we're trying to adhere to.
On a side note, it can also be argued that the Vegan Society's definition implies that animals need to be sentient, because it's not easy to conceptualize how one can be cruel to, or exploitative of, non-sentient animals. However, vegans who cling to the Vegan Society's definition of veganism tend to ignore this problem, and in my experience, get angry when this issue with their definition is brought up.
Secondly, the dictionary definition presents philosophical issues. If we cling to the, "animals," wording, then if a hypothetical plant happened to be sentient, killing and eating this plant would be vegan. This clearly violates the philosophy of veganism we're trying to adhere to. Surely no real vegans would be more okay with killing a sentient plant than eating a bivalve or using a sponge. A veg
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Apologies for being late to the party, but we visited Darling Harbour for the first time in ages and was affronted by that wonderful beautiful fence surrounding it. I understand the catalyst was an incident where a tourist fell in an unfortunately lost his life.
Am I the only one who thinks it's a dumb?
)