Vegan

2967 readers

5 users here now

An online space for the vegans of Lemmy.

Rules and miscellaneous:

We take for granted that if you engage in this community, you understand that veganism is about the animals. You either are vegan for the animals, or you are not (this is not to say that discussions about climate/environment/health are not allowed, of course)
No omni/carnist apologists. This is not a place where to ask to be hand-holded into veganims. Omnis coddling/backpatting is not tolerated, nor are /r/DebateAVegan-like threads
Use content warnings and NSFW tags for triggering content
Circlejerking belongs to /c/vegancirclejerk
All posts should abide by Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Vegan definition (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I dont see it here, so figured someone's gotta post it. Here is the definition of veganism as made by the vegan society circa 1944:

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—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 animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

It is not a great definition in my opinion. The sentence "as far as is possible and practicable" is too vague. It makes people claim that when it is merely very inconvenient to get a vegan meal, it is vegan to eat something with animal products.

In my opinion veganism should be the extention of human rights to animals. That would mean that even killing a pig for a heart valve to safe a human would not be vegan. After all, we wouldn't even kill one human to safe multiple others in a similar scenario because that would violate the rights of the to be killed individual. You could argue that it is better to safe more lives, sure. But it wouldn't be the 'pro-human rights' thing to do.

I believe that is more in line with the philosophy the vegan society was founded to promote than their own current definition.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

we wouldn’t even kill one human to safe multiple others in a similar scenario

Yeah, we would? In fact, we make decisions every day that put other's lives in risk, just for our own convenience. Is the one millionth of a person that you kill driving to the grocery store worth it when you could just walk?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I think accidents and risks are different. We wouldn't kill a person to safe 4 people with organ failure.

load more comments (1 replies)