Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons?

[Tim Gier]

In this article, the author talks about how he became vegan as the result of hearing about PeTA's 30 day Vegan Challenge. He specifically says that he didn't do it for ethical reasons. However, he also says that he was vegan as a child and that his family was and now is again mostly is vegan. 

This raises two questions. First, has he gone vegan for the wrong reasons, and if so, does that matter and how?  Second, does it say about people generally that a person who was raised as a vegan in a largely vegan family chose to not live that way anymore? Are we all in that same boat? Are any of us apt to look back on the person we are today and wonder why we were ever vegan in the first place? Are we all potentially "ex-vegans" depending on the social circumstances we find ourselves in??

Here's the article: http://banning-beaumont.patch.com/articles/taking-a-vegan-challenge...

[Tim Gier]

Dang!! I hate typos :)

I agree with your sociological perspective and with your observation about the individuality of people and how they act and react both to societal pressures as well as moral or ethical arguments. I also agree that it seems that if a person were to adopt a considered opinion about the ethics of a particular practice that they'd have a more secure footing on which to ground their future behaviors. Unfortunately, I don't know that that's true. 

I read another article this morning about a person who said "I agree with the philosophy behind veganism, but it just wasn't something I was prepared to do." I suppose we could argue that such a person didn't really agree with the philosophy, or that she didn't understand it, but I think there's ample research to show that intelligent and well-educated people often act in ways contrary to ethical principles they understand.

To my way of thinking, the question is, Who is more likely to eventually accept the ethical argument for veganism? A person who chooses for whatever reason to adopt some or most of the practices of a vegan philosophy or a person who chooses to adopt none of them? It seems to me that the former person is at least on a path that might lead to ethical veganism whereas the latter is not. (Of course, it's always possible that the latter person might have a "eureka moment" and one day adopt veganism anyway, but it seems that, as is the case with most of our beliefs, conviction is developed through practice.)

[Tim Gier]

I agree completely with your assessment.

[Brandon Becker]

I care first and foremost that someone stops eating animals or otherwise participating in animal exploitation. There are too few vegans for us to worry too much about the reason someone goes vegan. That said, I promote veganism primarily for other animals, not human health or the natural environment or other reasons, even though they are all compelling in their own right. I advocate veganism for other animals because it's the most solid case and is more likely to lead to sustainable change while also building the movement for animal liberation.

[Tim Gier]

I agree Brandon, THAT people go vegan is, at least initially, more important than WHY they go vegan or HOW they come to that decision. Better, in the long run, that people adopt an anti-speciesist ethic and a consistent philosophy of respect for all others, but in the short run, more vegans is better than fewer vegans. That said, I do think that there will be some people for whom an argument about health or the environment will contribute to them making meaningful changes in their lives and that if we can, as advocates, appeal to what motivates people as individuals rather than take a "one-size fits all" approach, then as a movement, we would probably be more effective. For example, isn't it possible (if not probable) that an appeal to elderly people based on the health benefits of a plant-based diet would resonate with them in a way that an appeal based on ethics might not? I think it is, and I think we ought to be mindful of the audience we're speaking to. Of course, I accept the argument, as well, that in terms of the movement, our time might be better spent talking to young people, as they may be more open to change and to the ethical argument too, but certainly there will be advocates who will want to focus their efforts elsewhere.