I disagree. This sounds like gate keeping. For me, veganism is about being against animal exploitation. If the relation between animals is symbiotic (mutually beneficial), I personally don’t think this is exploitation.
I don’t want to debate about it. I’ve already been down that road and it is not pretty. Vegans don’t win anything by tearing each other apart. But I want to offer a different vision of what veganism is to the OP.
Animal welfarism consists in the application of moral utilitarianism to individuals of other animal species. It is based in the anthropocentric believe that these individuals only need to enjoy welfarism just enough and suffering as low as possible while exploitation of them persists.
The only objective is to get legal regulations in how individuals of other animal species are enslaved and exploited to reduce their suffering.
People involved in animal welfarism don’t believe individuals of other animal species need any kind of respect for their inalienable interests or legal rights. They just refuse it and accept that is good to make any action about these individuals in the measure the consider it justified to satisfy their own interest as humans.
Individuals of other animal species as consciousness beings have inalienable interests (interests for themselves as individuals) in equivalent way to human individuals.
This is developed directly as natural rights which are different from our concept of rights in society because this last one comes from positive rights, which are positive because there is an entity or several who can guarantee them, but only serve as a protection of these rights.
A big part of human society is inside that: they don’t care when a pig is assassinated for them to have a meal, but care about these when are beaten without any sense. This is simply moral reification.
I’m not gonna argue, as I said, because I know that people that are as extremist as you are cannot be reasoned with. Also, you are admin and you seem to have the ban hammer quite heavy, so I’m not gonna risk it. I left this community yesterday and won’t come back. Your approach is so extreme that you manage to scare away even other vegans/antispeciesists. This should give you pause as to how you are actually defending animals by having that kind of behavior.
Just a comment on that single sentence, because this seems all wrong to me:
Animal welfarism consists in the application of moral utilitarianism to individuals of other animal species.
I have no idea how you manage to conflate welfarism, utilitarianism and speciesism. Animal welfarism can and should encompass humans. Please notice how I said “If the relation between animals is symbiotic”. If I had a speciesist approach because of my welfairism, I would have said something like “If the relation between humans and animals is symbiotic”.
Veganism is not about purity. It is about ethics and the living. By definition, utilitarianism is a branch of the philosophy of ethics. Since you said that “animal welfarism is not veganism” and you define animal welfarism as “the application of moral utilitarianism to individuals of other animal species”, my understanding is that you are not seeking ethics but purity and thus missing the point entirely.
that are as extremist as you are cannot be reasoned with
Veganism is a radical movement. You care about rights of individuals of other species or you don’t. There is no middle point as there is no middle point for humans.
And there is no problem with that. Reminder of etymology of radical.
Veganism is also not about humans in the sense of focus of getting rights, it is the minimum we as humans must do as moral agents for individuals of other animal species.
Other thing is that violating human rights is incompatible with veganism, which I think that is your focus.
I think you are confusing concepts with animal welfarism, (maybe a language barrier?), but I point you to take a bit and check “welfarisms laws towards animals” in your country and the movements associated to it and what they claim.
Pointing ways to kill pigs without suffering, massive free cats genital mutilations (or even paid by taxes for domestics cats living in the wildness) are measured classified as animal welfarism and no, this is not veganism and this is the official definition of that.
About your “symbiotic” approach I dont get what you mean.
Individuals from other animal species have their own lifes and is not for you to decide what you think they could benefit them unless you are taking care of some of them as tutor (not even master or owner but think of it like you being legal guardian of a child who cannot communicate with you unless is refered to basic things) and even as temporal because of their situation in society (literally law defines them as goods with autonomous movement, when not refered to dogs and cats ofc as speciesm is applied even at absurd level of being absurd).
I disagree, but I can feel the radicality of a newly converted in your words. Newly converted often come from carnism and it took them a form of trauma or sudden enlightnement to take the step. Often, after that, they are very radical, hating the world for not making the same choice they did. For being blind to the horrors. Then they learn that their radical approach is toxic to the cause and thus to the animals in the long run.
I have been vegetarian for 33 years, and then vegan for 7 years, and my parents taught me antispeciesism when I was a child. I’ve grown my whole life (40 years), knowing that I had a different take on things than most people. I had a lot of time to think about it and I acquired a lot of experience talking about animal rights. I learned over all these years that you cannot convince anyone with radicality. And so does L214, the most prominent NGO in France for animal rights. No radical French NGO made any difference, except for the few dozens they actively saved, while millions were dying every day meanwhile.
Even if the end goal is abolitionism, having a moderate approach, and pushing for welfarist laws are pratical ethics in action. They improve the life of millions of animals, help the public to understand the issues, and simply make you audible. Screaming your hatred at the world will just make you look odd and you are helping no animal that way. None. In fact, I dare say that radical veganism is even counterproductive because it scares people away. People that would cease to be part of the problem and even people that could convince others to stop being part of it. Domino effect.
I recommand that you read Singer’s book on Henry Spira’s life and methods. I recommend you read Full Spectrum Resistance. This might teach you a few things about convincing people and defending a cause.
Regarding symbiosis, organisms, including animals, can live together and be mutually beneficial to each other. Do you think your microbiota is taking advantage of you? Is it exploiting you? In a way it does, because it manipulates you and influences your psyche. Yet, you would die without it. You feed it, and it keeps you alive. Do you see where I am going? Sure, the microbiota is not sentient but you are. And you are the one being exploited, if we stick to your definition of exploitation.
We can’t abolish slavery right away, baby steps are necessary. We need a more moderate approach.
In fact, I dare say that radical abolition is even counterproductive because it scares people away. We need to push for better treatment of slaves, and not alienate the slaveholders.
I started the discussion because I saw that may be you didn’t understand a part of it, where new messages came more weird.
In this message, you literally show an green pass for laws choosing how to kill pigs (not caring about their rights even but just reducing suffering) and try to adornate it (without direct mention) in a “everything counts” (dont know exact translation) informal fallacy trying to justify by supposed benefits, and camouflage things as “help people understand the issues”, help to understand what? That you must reduce suffering of animals and this make them easy in the allowlist?
I dont know the organizations you mention and didnt check, but if they do that, they are not better that most ones out there calling themselves animal welfarists and/or animalists.
And you start feeling entitled to self-validate your things because you believe you have more age (even if you have which is the case) than me?
However, you don’t even differenciate between moral agent and moral subject to the point you even try to show a wrong version of “exploitation” which seems to come only in this message and not the rest in a way to put these as my own words.
In other terms, you seem to take advantage of this discussion to call this as “my way to convince people”.
The way for veganism is educational activism, and not, this is not what I am doing here and sadly not what I do currently but a goal.
However, I think you appreciate that since the beginning and you only point it here as some kind of giving your reasoning a green pass.
I disagree. This sounds like gate keeping. For me, veganism is about being against animal exploitation. If the relation between animals is symbiotic (mutually beneficial), I personally don’t think this is exploitation.
I don’t want to debate about it. I’ve already been down that road and it is not pretty. Vegans don’t win anything by tearing each other apart. But I want to offer a different vision of what veganism is to the OP.
Animal welfarism consists in the application of moral utilitarianism to individuals of other animal species. It is based in the anthropocentric believe that these individuals only need to enjoy welfarism just enough and suffering as low as possible while exploitation of them persists.
The only objective is to get legal regulations in how individuals of other animal species are enslaved and exploited to reduce their suffering.
People involved in animal welfarism don’t believe individuals of other animal species need any kind of respect for their inalienable interests or legal rights. They just refuse it and accept that is good to make any action about these individuals in the measure the consider it justified to satisfy their own interest as humans.
Individuals of other animal species as consciousness beings have inalienable interests (interests for themselves as individuals) in equivalent way to human individuals.
This is developed directly as natural rights which are different from our concept of rights in society because this last one comes from positive rights, which are positive because there is an entity or several who can guarantee them, but only serve as a protection of these rights.
A big part of human society is inside that: they don’t care when a pig is assassinated for them to have a meal, but care about these when are beaten without any sense. This is simply moral reification.
I’m not gonna argue, as I said, because I know that people that are as extremist as you are cannot be reasoned with. Also, you are admin and you seem to have the ban hammer quite heavy, so I’m not gonna risk it. I left this community yesterday and won’t come back. Your approach is so extreme that you manage to scare away even other vegans/antispeciesists. This should give you pause as to how you are actually defending animals by having that kind of behavior.
Just a comment on that single sentence, because this seems all wrong to me:
I have no idea how you manage to conflate welfarism, utilitarianism and speciesism. Animal welfarism can and should encompass humans. Please notice how I said “If the relation between animals is symbiotic”. If I had a speciesist approach because of my welfairism, I would have said something like “If the relation between humans and animals is symbiotic”. Veganism is not about purity. It is about ethics and the living. By definition, utilitarianism is a branch of the philosophy of ethics. Since you said that “animal welfarism is not veganism” and you define animal welfarism as “the application of moral utilitarianism to individuals of other animal species”, my understanding is that you are not seeking ethics but purity and thus missing the point entirely.
I feel like I took the bait. You can now ban me.
Someone should make a debateVeganism sub
Removed by mod
Veganism is a radical movement. You care about rights of individuals of other species or you don’t. There is no middle point as there is no middle point for humans.
And there is no problem with that. Reminder of etymology of radical.
Veganism is also not about humans in the sense of focus of getting rights, it is the minimum we as humans must do as moral agents for individuals of other animal species.
Other thing is that violating human rights is incompatible with veganism, which I think that is your focus.
I think you are confusing concepts with animal welfarism, (maybe a language barrier?), but I point you to take a bit and check “welfarisms laws towards animals” in your country and the movements associated to it and what they claim.
Pointing ways to kill pigs without suffering, massive free cats genital mutilations (or even paid by taxes for domestics cats living in the wildness) are measured classified as animal welfarism and no, this is not veganism and this is the official definition of that.
About your “symbiotic” approach I dont get what you mean.
Individuals from other animal species have their own lifes and is not for you to decide what you think they could benefit them unless you are taking care of some of them as tutor (not even master or owner but think of it like you being legal guardian of a child who cannot communicate with you unless is refered to basic things) and even as temporal because of their situation in society (literally law defines them as goods with autonomous movement, when not refered to dogs and cats ofc as speciesm is applied even at absurd level of being absurd).
Removed by mod
I disagree, but I can feel the radicality of a newly converted in your words. Newly converted often come from carnism and it took them a form of trauma or sudden enlightnement to take the step. Often, after that, they are very radical, hating the world for not making the same choice they did. For being blind to the horrors. Then they learn that their radical approach is toxic to the cause and thus to the animals in the long run.
I have been vegetarian for 33 years, and then vegan for 7 years, and my parents taught me antispeciesism when I was a child. I’ve grown my whole life (40 years), knowing that I had a different take on things than most people. I had a lot of time to think about it and I acquired a lot of experience talking about animal rights. I learned over all these years that you cannot convince anyone with radicality. And so does L214, the most prominent NGO in France for animal rights. No radical French NGO made any difference, except for the few dozens they actively saved, while millions were dying every day meanwhile.
Even if the end goal is abolitionism, having a moderate approach, and pushing for welfarist laws are pratical ethics in action. They improve the life of millions of animals, help the public to understand the issues, and simply make you audible. Screaming your hatred at the world will just make you look odd and you are helping no animal that way. None. In fact, I dare say that radical veganism is even counterproductive because it scares people away. People that would cease to be part of the problem and even people that could convince others to stop being part of it. Domino effect.
I recommand that you read Singer’s book on Henry Spira’s life and methods. I recommend you read Full Spectrum Resistance. This might teach you a few things about convincing people and defending a cause.
Regarding symbiosis, organisms, including animals, can live together and be mutually beneficial to each other. Do you think your microbiota is taking advantage of you? Is it exploiting you? In a way it does, because it manipulates you and influences your psyche. Yet, you would die without it. You feed it, and it keeps you alive. Do you see where I am going? Sure, the microbiota is not sentient but you are. And you are the one being exploited, if we stick to your definition of exploitation.
We can’t abolish slavery right away, baby steps are necessary. We need a more moderate approach.
In fact, I dare say that radical abolition is even counterproductive because it scares people away. We need to push for better treatment of slaves, and not alienate the slaveholders.
I started the discussion because I saw that may be you didn’t understand a part of it, where new messages came more weird.
In this message, you literally show an green pass for laws choosing how to kill pigs (not caring about their rights even but just reducing suffering) and try to adornate it (without direct mention) in a “everything counts” (dont know exact translation) informal fallacy trying to justify by supposed benefits, and camouflage things as “help people understand the issues”, help to understand what? That you must reduce suffering of animals and this make them easy in the allowlist?
I dont know the organizations you mention and didnt check, but if they do that, they are not better that most ones out there calling themselves animal welfarists and/or animalists.
And you start feeling entitled to self-validate your things because you believe you have more age (even if you have which is the case) than me?
However, you don’t even differenciate between moral agent and moral subject to the point you even try to show a wrong version of “exploitation” which seems to come only in this message and not the rest in a way to put these as my own words.
In other terms, you seem to take advantage of this discussion to call this as “my way to convince people”.
The way for veganism is educational activism, and not, this is not what I am doing here and sadly not what I do currently but a goal.
However, I think you appreciate that since the beginning and you only point it here as some kind of giving your reasoning a green pass.