What the Word 'Vegan' Really Means
There is a great deal of discussion about what “vegan” means.
“Veganism” means at the very least not eating any flesh, dairy, or other animal products. In this sense, “vegan” means “vegan diet.” Different people may have different reasons–ethical/spiritual, health, environmental–for eating a vegan diet. Those who pursue a vegan diet may also, and for various reasons, eschew the use of other animal products in contexts beyond diet.
For example, someone who pursues a vegan diet may also not wear animal products on her skin for health reasons–products applied to the skin get into the body. Someone who pursues a vegan diet for environmental reasons may also not wear a particular animal product because of the effect on the environment of the production of the product.
Those who pursue veganism for ethical/spiritual reasons may also fall into different groups. Some ethical vegans see their veganism as a way of reducing animal suffering. That is, they do not think that it is wrong in and of itself to kill animals for human use but that it is wrong to inflict suffering on animals and so they avoid eating or using animal products. If there were a painless way to raise and slaughter animals for human use, these ethical vegans would not object to animal use.
These vegans are not necessarily and usually are not committed to the abolition of animal exploitation and pursue regulatory reform that they believe, mistakenly in my view, will reduce animal suffering.
“Ethical veganism,” as I use that term, goes beyond a vegan diet and rejects direct animal consumption or use of any kind or use of any kind. An ethical vegan has a vegan diet and rejects consuming animal products but also does not wear or use any animal products. An ethical vegan rejects the commodification of nonhumans as property. An ethical vegan is committed to the abolition of animal exploitation. Moreover, ethical vegans recognize that an animal-based agriculture harms other humans as well as non-humans. Ethical veganism is the moral baseline of the animal rights movement. Ethical veganism represents a commitment to non-violence in one’s daily living.
In my experience, ethical veganism is the only sort of approach that results in consistent behavior. Vegans for health reasons alone often “cheat” just as those who are on any diet for heath reasons often do. Vegans for environmental reasons may not only lapse but may decide that an animal product has fewer adverse environmental consequences than non-animal products. A ethical vegan who sees veganism only as a way of reducing animal suffering may eat or use an animal product if she thinks that more suffering will be caused if she does not.
For example, some, such as Peter Singer and others, maintain that we ought to eat animal products if not to do so will cause others to think that veganism is too difficult and thereby be dissuaded from thinking about veganism. These vegans then become “flexible” vegans which, in my view, means that they are not really vegans. An ethical vegan sees veganism as a general approach to life–a philosophy of living–and not as merely a matter of lifestyle.
A final (for now) comment: health and environmental concerns may have a moral aspect. For example, those who pursue a vegan diet may do so because they believe that inflicting physical damage on their bodies by consuming animal products is a form of violence (harm to the the self) and is immoral.
Those who pursue a vegan diet or who eschew the use of animal products for environmental reasons may do so not because of a utilitarian concern to preserve the environment but because they believe that the environmental consequences directly affect sentient humans and nonhumans and violate the rights of these sentient beings. Moreover, an ethical vegan may also shun animal products for reasons of health and environment.
In sum, people may be vegans for different reasons. In my view, ethical veganism is the only approach that results in consistent behavior. We should, however, be clear that no form of veganism is consistent with the consumption of any animal products.
I will be writing at greater length about this topic soon.
If you are not vegan, go vegan. It is incredibly easy to be vegan. It is better for your health and for the planet. But, most importantly, it is the morally right thing to do.
Related posts:
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Gary L Francione's real definition of vegan is put on blinders to the daily war on animals and bake vegan cupcakes behind the safety of your white picket fence. Let your millionaire wife give you a big allowance and take portraits surrounded by dogs you hire staff to care for while you lecture to and write books for a tiny vanishing island of sit on their lily white ass bourgie vegans who preach to themselves on Facebook when not baking cupcakes.
Ethical *humans* not only embrace the end of exploitation of animals and people, they hunt sab, rehabilitate wounded wildlife, educate the public, personally bring fresh produce to impoverished neighborhoods, plant community gardens, donate food without animal ingredients to food pantries, and bust foxes out of fur farms.
Boring essays and vegan cupcakes don't stop anal electrocutions. Neither does your shallow sense of morality.
Donald Watson, who originated the term " vegan ," very clearly used it in the context of diet as well as of an overall philosophy.
He stated, for instance, in the context of saying that vegan food can be found anywhere: "Wherever Man lives, he can have a vegan diet."
Watson also very clearly identified health as one of the reasons that may motivate one to adopt a vegan diet.
Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
If Veganism were to spread and the demand for animal products (in food products) was zero or minimal and the resulting supply equilibrium fell to zero as an economic function, then do vegan 's contend as a result over time that there would be an eradication of Cows, Chickens, Horses as (following Darwinism) their use in society became obsolete and illegal . Furthermore if animal rights were instituted wouldn't it or shouldn't it be contrary to societies view on animal rights to own a pet? Since most vegans I know own pets isn't that someone akin to owning supporting the abolition movement but owning slave? As pet ownership was eliminated or restricted wouldn't companion animals also peter out over the generations, leaving us with only the animals left in nature? I know this is an extreme scenario, but doesn't something like this have to hold under both ethical veganism, evolution and economic theory? I am truly curious.
I suppose we can never truly presume to know what would happen, but I'd like to shed some insight if I may.
First, when you refer to cows, chickens, and horses, remember that these are all animals that existed in nature in some form. In the case of chickens and cows, they are the results of a significantly manipulated pedigree and would most likely not survive in their current form without intervention. Many domesticated animals are such that they reach a market weight so rapidly, that they can never live a natural life beyond an age of optimal utility to humans. So yes, these man-made sub-species of B. primigenius and G. gallus domesticus would no longer be artificially produced through human intervention and would therefore not have a great chance at survival. Horses, on the other hand , can and do survive in the wild. In some cases, chickens that haven't gone through force-molting procedures and were fed a natural diet can actually thrive in the right environment without human aid.
Second, animal rights views are, by and large, all contrary to many societal views, so pet ownership is surely no exception. Instead of your slave ownership analogy, allow me to present one that I feel is more apt. Suppose you were spearheading a campaign to end unwanted human pregnancies. You support sex education , contraception, and abortion . You also are the proud parent of several adopted children . Nowhere in your ideology is there room for turning these children to the streets, nor is there logic behind not giving these sentient beings a life of love and good health . And yet, it is easy to see how the efforts of your work , if successful, would make it so that there would no longer be orphaned children to adopt.
As for specific subspecies of dogs or cats, C. l. familiaris and Felis catus, they would most likely not go extinct, simply because of how adaptable they are (more so in the case of cats). I would assume that many breeds would not be able to survive if they were simply turned loose, however. Accordingly, no reasonable animal rights activist is suggesting that we do this.
The first place to start is to stop thinking about subspecies and start thinking about individuals. Animal rights activists are not out to end the destruction of this species or that species. We are looking to end the morally unjustifiable institution of animal exploitation. That means that domesticated animals will cease to be produced through the processes put in place by humans, and those that can reinhabit their environment will. Those that cannot, should be given as best a life as possible.
I hope this helps stir up some good follow-up questions.
Vegans are encouraged to rescue animals , not to buy pets from breeders or pet stores. Also, there are very few people who feed their cats and dogs a meatless diet , but it can be done; both my animals—a cat and a dog—are vegan and healthy.
Your scenario is a very extreme one, because most people I know feel it's the ultimate in cruelty to not give your pets meat to eat. Also, the primary question people ask is regarding what if farm animals were no longer eaten or used—wouldn't they overrun the world?
Considering the horrendous existence of many factory-farmed animals—and "free-range" ones too—how much of a loss to an animal is it if he never knows the constant torture that is life on a factory farm? As the demand for meat and animal products decreased, naturally the raising of animals would decrease. As far as the animals "in nature" who would be left, since some estimates project that the human population of the world will peak around 9 billion a few years from now, it's hard to say how much "nature" there will be left on earth.
So I'm not clear on what you're asking here; are you saying what follows according to your model is the eventual extinction of cats and dogs, except feral ones? It's likely that it's going to be a long time before that happens; again, my question is, why would that be a bad thing?
I agree *exclusively* with Donald Watson’s definition. As far as I’m concerned, the word “ vegan ” entails the ethical reasons. There is no such thing as a “ health vegan”. Anyone who, for example, eats *only* what a vegan eats, but buys a leather jacket, is *not* a vegan by any stretch of the imagination.
Donald Watson and the Vegan Society define veganism as "a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food , clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment ."
So if someone is vegan for environmental reasons or to oppose cruel farming practices (but are not necessarily against killing animals for human use), I guess they can technically be called vegans , but are they still vegans under Watson's definition?
Since you brought up the term, I have to wonder if a "technical vegan " is like a "technical virgin" who will perform any kind of sex act except "the big one."
People come to veganism for all sorts of reasons; I, for one gave up dairy products first, and strictly for health reasons. Fortunately the definition of veganism is broad enough that people come to it through different routes. I'm not opposed to seeing vegetarianism as a "gateway" to veganism, simply because that's how most people come to it.
If someone avoids all animal products, they're vegan according to Watson's definition; if they eat "some honey" or "a little meat ," they're not.