Vegan vs. Animal Advocate by Erik Marcus (vegan.com)

[Tim Gier]

You know what might be the single most effective way for the animal protection movement to gain ground? Having more people think of themselves, not as vegans, but as animal advocates.

Being vegan is about cutting the harm your lifestyle choices inflict on animals to as close to zero as possible. As a vegan, the benefit you’re delivering to animals is really only the sum of the harm you’d personally be causing if you weren’t vegan.

But being an animal advocate, and not simply a vegan, is orders of magnitude more significant. Here, you’re attacking the problem of the tens of billions of animals being factory farmed and slaughtered worldwide. Your capacity to create change is limited only by your talent and commitment.

I’m probably as devoted to following a vegan lifestyle as a person can be, yet I rarely think of being vegan as part of my identity. Instead, I think of my identity—and my purpose in life—as being an animal advocate. It’s just so much more powerful.

What about you? How do you identify yourself? Would shifting your self-identification enhance your commitment to animal protection?

Original posted on July 28, 2010 here.

[Tim Gier]

From the surveys that I've seen of people who identify as vegans, about half (or less) of them say that they are vegan for reasons having to do with the ethics involved in the use/consumption of other animals. Of those that say they are vegan for ethical reasons, I suspect that some percentage say that because they know that that's what they are "supposed to say" (studies have shown that a high percentage of people respond to surveys in the way that they think society expects them to). Also, at least one survey showed that almost 60% of the respondents who said they were vegan also said that they ate a diet that included eggs, dairy, fishes and other animal products. So...... Not all vegans are ethical vegans, not all ethical vegans are likely to really be vegan for ethical reasons and it's likely that not everyone who says that they're vegan fit most definitions of what a vegan is anyway. It's hard for me to imagine then that a large percentage of those people would be vocal about their veganism or that they'd be activists for other animals.

Lucas Hayes said:

Why would you suspect that most people who are vegan aren't activists or 'witnesses" in that sense? 

 

[Lucas Hayes]

I'd be interested to know if any "ethical vegans" (veganism is an ethical position) from Animal Rights Zone have participated in any such surveys. I haven't had the opportunity to participate myself : (

 

"Of those that say they are vegan for ethical reasons, I suspect that some percentage say that because they know that that's what they are "supposed to say" (studies have shown that a high percentage of people respond to surveys in the way that they think society expects them to)".

I don't understand this. Why would someone expect that a society that facilitates, condones, and encourages animal exploitation wants them to say they oppose animal exploitation for ethical reasons when they do not?

 

"Also, at least one survey showed that almost 60% of the respondents who said they were vegan also said that they ate a diet that included eggs, dairy, fishes and other animal products. So...... Not all vegans are ethical vegans, not all ethical vegans are likely to really be vegan for ethical reasons and it's likely that not everyone who says that they're vegan fit most definitions of what a vegan is anyway."

 

To claim that not all vegans are vegan for ethical reasons is to, again, decontextualize veganism historically. Cross, in 1951, put it this way: "One may become a vegetarian for a variety of reasons — humanitarian, health, or mere preference for such a diet; The principle is a smatter of personal feeling, and varies accordingly. Veganism, however, is a principle — that man has no  right to exploit the creatures for his own ends — and no variation occurs. Vegan diet is therefore derived entirely from "fruits, nuts, vegetables, grains and other wholesome non-animal products," and excludes "flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey and animal milk and its derivatives."

[Tim Gier]

Hi Pranav, 

Here's a link to one study conducted of more than 1200 people. http://www.scribd.com/doc/26880337/APF-VVSQ

I will look for the other that I'm thinking of and post it as soon as I find it.

Pranav Merchant said:

Tim, would you share what surveys you are referring to?  I'd be interested in reading them.  Thanks.

[Tim Gier]

Lucas,

I've never been surveyed about veganism either.

Whether "society" condones the use of other animals or not, when individual people are asked questions for which an answer is obviously the more sociably desirably one (i.e. when one has the chance to answer that one's reason for doing something is out of moral concern for others) then a statistically meaningful percentage of respondents will answer in that way regardless of their actual motivation. For example, when asked the question "Do you always purchase organic produce when it's available" a higher percentage of people will answer YES than will actually always purchase organic produce. 

I am not claiming that all vegans are vegan for other than ethical reasons. Vegans themselves are reporting their own motivations. If they don't consider the ethical reasons for veganism as operative in their own lives, perhaps they are decontextualizing veganism, but I am not. However, I think what's really happening is that very many people become and stay vegan for reasons that have to do with their own health or with environmental concerns. Irrespective of what Cross said in 1951, one can't claim that people adhere to a principle that they themselves don't acknowledge or claim to adhere to.

Lucas Hayes said:

I'd be interested to know if any "ethical vegans" (veganism is an ethical position) from Animal Rights Zone have participated in any such surveys. I haven't had the opportunity to participate myself : (

 

"Of those that say they are vegan for ethical reasons, I suspect that some percentage say that because they know that that's what they are "supposed to say" (studies have shown that a high percentage of people respond to surveys in the way that they think society expects them to)".

I don't understand this. Why would someone expect that a society that facilitates, condones, and encourages animal exploitation wants them to say they oppose animal exploitation for ethical reasons when they do not?

 

"Also, at least one survey showed that almost 60% of the respondents who said they were vegan also said that they ate a diet that included eggs, dairy, fishes and other animal products. So...... Not all vegans are ethical vegans, not all ethical vegans are likely to really be vegan for ethical reasons and it's likely that not everyone who says that they're vegan fit most definitions of what a vegan is anyway."

 

To claim that not all vegans are vegan for ethical reasons is to, again, decontextualize veganism historically. Cross, in 1951, put it this way: "One may become a vegetarian for a variety of reasons — humanitarian, health, or mere preference for such a diet; The principle is a smatter of personal feeling, and varies accordingly. Veganism, however, is a principle — that man has no  right to exploit the creatures for his own ends — and no variation occurs. Vegan diet is therefore derived entirely from "fruits, nuts, vegetables, grains and other wholesome non-animal products," and excludes "flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey and animal milk and its derivatives."

[Lucas Hayes]

"Vegans themselves are reporting their own motivations."

Or they're not vegans at all. If one can be considered a vegan but still consume eggs, cow's milk, fishes, or other animal products when it's not necessary to do so, then veganism no longer has any meaning.

 

'If they don't consider the ethical reasons for veganism as operative in their own lives, perhaps they are decontextualizing veganism, but I am not."

 

Stickler alert! What makes veganism veganism, and what sets it apart from other ways of living such as vegetarianism, is the ethical commitment; the principle "from which certain practices logically flow". That's not to say that vegans don't start out becoming vegan through an interest in health or the environment or personal hygiene or whatever. I accept that many people do.

 

"'Do you always purchase organic produce when it's available' a higher percentage of people will answer YES than will actually always purchase organic produce."

 

But I really do!!! : )

[Tim Gier]

So then, is what you're saying is that unless one is an "ethical vegan" then one isn't a vegan at all, as well as that all ethical vegans are necessarily also advocates for other animals?

Lucas Hayes said:

"Vegans themselves are reporting their own motivations."

Or they're not vegans at all. If one can be considered a vegan but still consume eggs, cow's milk, fishes, or other animal products when it's not necessary to do so, then veganism no longer has any meaning.

 

'If they don't consider the ethical reasons for veganism as operative in their own lives, perhaps they are decontextualizing veganism, but I am not."

 

Stickler alert! What makes veganism veganism, and what sets it apart from other ways of living such as vegetarianism, is the ethical commitment; the principle "from which certain practices logically flow". That's not to say that vegans don't start out becoming vegan through an interest in health or the environment or personal hygiene or whatever. I accept that many people do.

 

"'Do you always purchase organic produce when it's available' a higher percentage of people will answer YES than will actually always purchase organic produce."

 

But I really do!!! : )

[Lucas Hayes]

I'm saying that veganism is an ethical commitment to live in a way that avoids exploitation of animals, yes. Do you agree with that, Tim? If one is a vegan (by the way it is defined) then yes, one is an animal advocate; the most consistent of animal advocates in my opinion. I don't see how one could be a true animal advocate without being a vegan. This isn't to say that people who are not vegan don't do positive things for other animals or that vegans shouldn't do more to promote the interests of other animals. What I'm saying is that it makes no sense to call oneself an "animal advocate' (whatever the hell that means anyways) if one is participating in the exploitation of animals and not attempting to not do so.  

[Tim Gier]

Lucas,

I'd say that veganism is a imperfect personal practice of non-consumption that may arise out of ethical considerations of others.  I'm not so sure about the "avoids exploitation" part, because I think it's not possible that any one vegan's consumption makes any difference in the net amount of exploitation that goes on in the world. I also think that a person could be a very effective and sincere advocate for other animals without being vegan, although I accept that it would perhaps be harder to articulate a one's position in that case (it wouldn't be impossible though).

Lucas Hayes said:

I'm saying that veganism is an ethical commitment to live in a way that avoids exploitation of animals, yes. Do you agree with that, Tim? If one is a vegan (by the way it is defined) then yes, one is an animal advocate; the most consistent of animal advocates in my opinion. I don't see how one could be a true animal advocate without being a vegan. This isn't to say that people who are not vegan don't do positive things for other animals or that vegans shouldn't do more to promote the interests of other animals. What I'm saying is that it makes no sense to call oneself an "animal advocate' (whatever the hell that means anyways) if one is participating in the exploitation of animals and not attempting to not do so.  

[Carolyn Bailey]

"What I'm saying is that it makes no sense to call oneself an "animal advocate' (whatever the hell that means anyways) if one is participating in the exploitation of animals and not attempting to not do so."

Lucas, I absolutely agree with you! 

I don't understand how one who chooses to exploit others can claim to advocate for those same others. That just doesn't seem to make sense to me. 

Lucas Hayes said:

I'm saying that veganism is an ethical commitment to live in a way that avoids exploitation of animals, yes. Do you agree with that, Tim? If one is a vegan (by the way it is defined) then yes, one is an animal advocate; the most consistent of animal advocates in my opinion. I don't see how one could be a true animal advocate without being a vegan. This isn't to say that people who are not vegan don't do positive things for other animals or that vegans shouldn't do more to promote the interests of other animals. What I'm saying is that it makes no sense to call oneself an "animal advocate' (whatever the hell that means anyways) if one is participating in the exploitation of animals and not attempting to not do so.  

[Tim Gier]

I suppose that a person who eats chickens could think that dolphins and whales ought to have their moral rights recognized as well as think that those animals should be protected by legal rights against human predators. If they held that position not because they "love dolphins and whales" but because they consider dolphins and whales to be non-human persons (while also thinking that chickens aren't persons at all) then it wouldn't necessarily be the case that they would be inconsistent in identifying themselves as advocates for animal rights.

Now, one might object that in order to be an animal rights advocate, one must advocate for the rights of ALL other animals, that one cannot pick and choose which animals one would advocate for. But that objection would fail. We all pick and choose which animals to advocate for. Tom Regan advocates only for those animals who are what he calls "subjects-of-a-life"; Gary Francione advocates only for those animals he believes are sentient; Joan Dunayer advocates for legal rights for insects and other invertebrates in addition to all vertebrates. I suppose that somebody somewhere advocates for the rights of microscopic animals too. Just in case some people who eat chickens might only choose to advocate for the rights of those animals who most closely fit the long-standing conception of "person" wouldn't de-legitimate such people's claims to be animal rights advocates.