Philosopher David Styzbel: Non-Violence and the Doubtful Meaning of "Vegan"

[Spencer Lo]

My apologies if people already saw this, but I found Styzbel's piece interesting and thought provoking. He addresses what may be called the "Nobody Is A Vegan" Argument (NIAVA).

1. A vegan is someone who consumes no animal products.
2. But even self-styled "vegans" are implicated in stearate in the consumption of tires, the glue on fruit-stickers, or in fixatives underneath computer keys.
3. Therefore self-styled "vegans" consume animal products.
4. Therefore self-styled "vegans" are not really vegan.
5. Everybody consists of self-styled "vegans" and everybody else.
6. Everybody else is not vegan either.
7. That leaves us with: Nobody is a vegan.

Rest here: http://davidsztybel.blogspot.com/2012/08/non-violence-and-doubtful-...

[Carolyn Bailey]

Thanks for posting this, Spencer! 

I actually started reading this a while back, got distracted and forgot to go back. I like David Sztybel, he's a lovely man and his work is thought provoking. I look forward to reading this again. :) 

[Spencer Lo]

I agree, David is a great guy. This post, and the other by James McWilliams ("Car Grill Carnage and Moral Consideration"), opened up another layer of complexity which can be very humbling. David's definition of vegan:

Someone who practices a non-violent lifestyle in terms of products and services consumed and therefore:

• avoids animal products as much as possible by practising non-violence absolutely where possible (e.g., no flesh foods or dairy)

• approximating non-violence as much as possible in all other cases by choosing the lesser harm (e.g., not boycotting computers, a campaign that would have very little positive effect - we'll get there when someone makes a vegan computer - and instead using computers as part of high-powered activism); and.

• calling for a vegan society - simply - in the long run.