Defining veganism not as a 100% plant-based diet, but rather as the ethical stance that commits one to avoid causing the exploitation (non-consensual use) and suffering of sentient non-humans, as far as practicable
Hmm, it seems bad to define “veganism” as something that has nothing to do with dietary choice. I.e. this would make someone who donates to effective animal welfare charities more “vegan”, since many animal welfare charities are order of magnitudes more effective with a few thousand dollars than what could be achieved by any personal dietary change.
I think that veganism is deontological, or at least has a deontological component to it; it relies on the act-omission distinction.
Imagine a world in which child sex abuse was as common and accepted as animal exploitation is in ours. In this world of rampant child sex abuse, some people would adopt protectchildrenism, the ethical stance that commits you to avoid causing the sexual exploitation (and suffering?) of human children as far as practicable – i.e. analogous to my definition of veganism.
It seems inaccurate/misleading for a child sex abuser to call themselves a protectchildrenist because they save more children from sexual abuse (by donating to effective child protection charities) than they themselves sexually abuse.
Also it seems morally worse for the child sex abuser to a) save more children through donations than they themselves abuse than b) not abuse the children but not donate; even though the world in which a) happens is a better world than the world in which b) happens (all else being equal).
Hmm, it seems bad to define “veganism” as something that has nothing to do with dietary choice. I.e. this would make someone who donates to effective animal welfare charities more “vegan”, since many animal welfare charities are order of magnitudes more effective with a few thousand dollars than what could be achieved by any personal dietary change.
I think that veganism is deontological, or at least has a deontological component to it; it relies on the act-omission distinction.
Imagine a world in which child sex abuse was as common and accepted as animal exploitation is in ours. In this world of rampant child sex abuse, some people would adopt protectchildrenism, the ethical stance that commits you to avoid causing the sexual exploitation (and suffering?) of human children as far as practicable – i.e. analogous to my definition of veganism.
It seems inaccurate/misleading for a child sex abuser to call themselves a protectchildrenist because they save more children from sexual abuse (by donating to effective child protection charities) than they themselves sexually abuse.
Also it seems morally worse for the child sex abuser to a) save more children through donations than they themselves abuse than b) not abuse the children but not donate; even though the world in which a) happens is a better world than the world in which b) happens (all else being equal).