An animal liberationist is someone who believes in the freeing of animals from exploitation and cruel treatment by humans. Most ethical vegans are animal liberationists however the definition of an animal liberationist does not necessarily require you to be vegan. As a vegan, what is your opinion on animal liberationists who do not have a fully plant based diet? Do you think they’re useful assets for the vegan movement because they support the same end goal or do you think they’re hypocrites who dilute your cause? Or is your perspective somewhere more in the middle? I’d like to hear your thoughts.
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Depends. Who are you talking about, and what are the concerning behaviors? Are they freegans or something like that?
I would specifically be referring to someone to believes from a logical and ethical standpoint that the production and consumption of animal products is wrong but lacks the willpower to fully give up consuming said products, however despite that, they recognize that they are an imperfect person for that reason.
Ah. In that case, the main part of my answer is that I mostly think in terms of scalar consequentialism, meaning that moral goodness and badness are on a continuum and we can all pretty much always do better or worse than whatever we're currently doing. There's not some "baseline" I've crossed into the realm of moral purity just because I'm vegan, do some activism, and donate. I could always do more activism and/or make my activism more effective. I could also try to get a better-paying job in order to donate more.
I don't think abstract ideals are morally valuable without being translated into action, but someone who takes a lot of effective action toward the cause of animal liberation is doing good in that respect. Certainly someone like Billie Eilish who gets labeled non-vegan because of horseback riding (if she hasn't changed on that) has had an overall positive impact for the animals that completely dwarfs all the effects I've had.
I agree with pretty much everything you’re saying here. I’ll have to look more into scalar consequentialism cuz I haven’t actually heard of it, but based on how you describe it I would absolutely agree with it. We’re all imperfect are there’s always something more we can do.
My main gripe is that I feel like the vegan community gate keeps people who’s diet isn’t fully plant based even if they hold the exact same ethical beliefs and agree with the things they do in their activism. There was literally a person who commented here who fits that exact description. By doing this I believe they’re excluding people who can be useful to their cause.
Consequentialism would necessitate that you arent committed to animal liberation. For example, if animal agriculture was done in a way in which their life was a net positive, then this would be fine. You would need deontology to be against it in principle.
I’m having trouble understanding why you believe consequentialism justifies that. Maybe you could explain what you mean when you say their life is a net positive but I don’t see how ending an animal’s life early by killing it would make a net positive impact on the world.
And indeed I'm not against it in principle, in that sense. Nor am I against the same thing for humans, in the same highly unlikely counterfactual. I'm against arrangements in the actual world that are never going to produce net positive experience.
Probably people like Peter Singer and Alex O'Connor.
In that case, I think Singer is very reasonable, I agree with him on many points, and it's obvious that his influence has been hugely positive.
Whereas O'Connor is a slimy coward who went back to clearly net harmful choices without being open about his situation or even asking the doctor who was his main donor. His overall impact has been negative.
I don't think that is possible.
Personally, I have been a vegetarian for some years, and especially this year I've been getting more into it, I promote animal liberation but I know I'm still part of the issue! I would like to do some direct activism but I still haven't since I'm not vegan... I know I still use animals, however I would like to encourage people to at least rethink how they see animals and do what they are capable of! I won't try to enter into AV or any other kind of activism bc I know I won't be well recieved (and I don't blame them). Anyways I've been voultaring on a vegan sanctuary this year, and I feel like a black sheep, I feel out of the conversation, and it actually made me rethink what I'm doing.
So, I'm transitioning into veganism. This month, I've only bought vegetal milk, I learned to make vegan cheese, I'm trying to only buy vegan products and I'm learning more about it. This week, I've basically been vegan and I'm really anxious about it but happy :) I hope there's no returning back to vegetarianism. I'm just scared that this is just social pressure?
So basically I would say I was always for animal liberation but not with my own consumption, it's contradictory and my own issue that now I choose to face. I never really stepped on real activism bc I knew I would be failing to the cause and I wouldnt be well seen by vegans (again, I don't blame them, I feel the same way about those who fight for animal rights but are still eating meat)
Great that you are going vegan fully now and that you've been helping the sanctuary!
I agree that from what you are saying this sounds like social pressure could be a main factor. While that is fine for going vegan, it is not very stable for staying vegan long term. In the end, the best and most stable reason to be vegan is for the animals. I would suggest you look further into the animal side too. Especially of the types of animal product you just gave up. Conspiracy might be a good documentary to watch since you've just swapped milks.
And when vegan, do join AV. The animals need the people to go vegan. And for that to happen we naar vegans to become activist too!
And feel free to reach out of you ever struggle of have questions. I'm more than happy to help.
Thank you! Yes the social stuff is playing an important role rn on me making decisions (just like always in life) I could name social reasons to go vegan or to keep vegetarian. Anyways I know I don't owe this to anyone except to the animals that are being exploited, so I'm trying to keep that motivation! Genuinely I'm scared this will pass and the future me will step back. I feel everyday more connected to the cause tho. I don't want to be one of those ex-vegans that give up on defending animal rights. I guess I'm overthinking about what scares me about these changes.
I would like to join AV! I almost visited them on their usual spot last Saturday to talk, but it got cancelled (And I'm a bit scared to be honest), I couldn't think about veganism without activism
Great, you've got this!
I'd say focus on the short term, make sure you get the practicalities of veganism right. Getting it right, including taking your nutrition seriously, limits the risk of becoming an ex-vegan later. Take your B12, and don't beat yourself up if you make a mistake, everyone does at some point. Just think about how you do better next time etc.
Then, with the basics covered, focus on the "why". I expect that doing AV gets the "why" across and there are other ways too.
To make AV less intimidating, check out their training videos and outreach flowchart, so you are well prepared. https://www.anonymousforthevoiceless.org/activismresources
Ask any question you may have, we're here to support.
You'll do great!
Thank you so much for your response. I think it is absolutely possible to be an animal liberationist without being vegan and that you are an example of one. It seems that you are someone who believes that from a logical and ethical standpoint that the production and consumption of animal products is wrong but you still have habits that in practice makes it difficult for you to give up those products. The fact that you recognize that you are imperfect for having a non vegan diet tells me that you are genuine in those beliefs and thus I would consider you an animal liberationist even though you’re not fully vegan.
Thank you, it's a complex subject where a lot of things are put in dialogue. It's about rejecting social norms and personal habits, it's not easy but I wish everyone at least did something about it.
I don't see how it's possible to be against something while willingly participating in it.
I could be against certain labor practices and knowingly purchase products that use them without really being a willing participant in those practices. We can understand that systemic change is needed for those practices to go away and fight for that change even while knowing that the practice is occurring.
But the exploitation is inherent to consuming animal products. Liberation isn't a welfarist goal. There isn't some system where you get to consume something that came out of the body of someone who wasn't able to consent to the transaction where you aren't exploiting them. No amount of systemic change will make that not exploitation.
I personally think there exists a way for someone to be against it while still consuming animal products. Moral beliefs aren’t the only things that drive behavior. Often times habits and willpower can play a role too. For example, does eating unhealthy necessarily mean that you don’t believe it can lead to bad health outcomes? Not always, some people just struggle to change their diet even if logically they know it’s the right thing to do.
I’m not saying that being vegan isn’t the most moral thing to do, ideally you should if you can. But do you not think it’s possible for someone to believe from a logical and ethical standpoint that the production and consumption of animal products is wrong, lack the willpower to fully give up consuming said products, and recognize that they are an imperfect person for that reason?
The claim that exploitation by consuming products that come out of an animal's body is inherently different to other types of exploitation, like human slavery, to the point where you as a consumer bare only minimal responsibility for the second, is absolutely bonkers.
It means that you'd have have minimal qualms about purchasing a phone that I make in a factory for next to nothing, in conditions that are so poor there are nets around the building to catch me. That's totalsy fine, we need "systematic change" to halt those practices so you as a consumer bare no responsibility. But if my working conditions are better, but my employer takes my period blood, that's "exploitation of the worst kind" and you have a moral imperative not to partake in it?
That’s literally what you’re arguing. The fact that vegans don't see how bonkers that conclusion is, is why their philosophy will never be taken seriously outside of truly vegan echo chambers.
I believe you and I have had this conversation before, and your position as an anti-vegan regular of this sub requires you to not understand how there might be a distinction between buying something made by children and one made out of children, so I'm going to explain my thinking in more detail in this comment but I won't be replying to follow ups from you, because I don't see the point. If non-vegan lurkers want to ask me questions, I'll probably oblige.
Consumers have limited insight into the relative differences in labor practices that created their products. Hell, I have limited insight into the labor conditions in the factories the company I work for uses. We know broadly that bad practices happen, but not hearing that some company does bad things doesn't mean they don't.
So how should consumers deal with labor issues? They should do it in an organized way. When there's a strike with a request from the union to boycott the company, people should boycott that company. If there's an organized boycott for another reason, such as the one going on due to the actions of the genocidal state of Israel, people should participate in that. These efforts are proven to work at scale. I encourage everyone to download the No Thanks app and scan your purchases before you buy to make sure you're not giving money to the targeted corporations supporting genocide.
But even these organized boycotts leave some major supporters out. Google for example is recognized as a corporation that supports the genocide, but they're not a boycott target due to how difficult it would be for people. That's the organizers talking, not me.
Now let's say none of this is convincing for you and your takeaway is that I'm a hypocrite for only boycotting on behalf of Palestine the corporations the BDS organizers have said to target. Well the most important thing to note about appeals to hypocrisy is that they don't refute the position they're arguing with, they concede it.
If the only problem you can find with veganism is that some or even all of its adherents fail to live up to its ideals, what you're saying is that you should go vegan.
That last little piece is very well put, I’ve never heard it before but I’m definitely stealing that!
Concepts not a single animal understands:
consent
exploitation
commodification
liberty
slavery
Human babies also don't understand this concept. You can also brainwash them into never ever understanding it by making it their normality.
Human babies will grow up. That's a key difference.
Also, you don't need to brainwash anyone for them to understand these very basic concepts. I haven't really been oppressed but I can recognize what oppression is.
Most slaves had never been free, but they had a good understanding of what freedom is
Concepts like 'freedom' are not inherently understood by humans. You can look at cults for example. Cult members rely on input from the outside to break their indoctrination. It's the same for slaves. Humans will 'accept' horrendous conditions just like animals as long as you don't show them anything from the outside.
I think they are.
As for your cult comparison, yes brainwashing does exist. But that has nothing to do with understanding freedom. Those folks gave up their freedom for whatever reason (belief in a better after life etc...)
It's not the same for slaves because slaves didn't voluntarily give up their freedom. They absolutely have an understanding of freedom and see freedom on a daily basis. The see free people and know what they can do that they themdelves cannot etc....
If I raise a human being in a space where it does not have access to the concept of freedom in whatever way, shape or form, I could exploit this human being until it dies. Do we agree here?
You're controlling the environment. Even if this person had a concept of freedom you could still exploit them until they die.
They did it in slavery, and those people knew what freedom was. They saw their master doing what ever the hell he wants.
You don't need to experience a concept to get it. At some point anyone would naturally wonder "What if I could do what I wanted to and didn't have to do what master said".
No.
Yes. They would see the guy who tells them what to do and wonder what it would be like to be that guy
Ok, so what? I don't see how this has anything to do with the discussion
That sounds a bit like a contradiction in terms. People fighting for full animal liberation are usually vegan by default too.
If you think about people fighting against modern farming practices than yes, they don't necessarily have to be vegan. Current farming practices, both of plant crops and especially of animals, are really bad long-term. And animal farming is a moral disaster. So one can genuinely be against that while eating meat from humane sources.
Indeed, vegans and people advocating for the humane treatment of animals continue the traditional moral practices of viewing animals as morally important. The current large scale agriculture has nothing to do with the traditional one: it is a system devoid of any moral consideration for animals (and for humans too, for that matter, if we consider how the workers are treated, the pollution, etc.)
That sounds profoundly messed up. Who are these people who believe animals shouldn't be slaughtered for food but are happy to buy animal flesh/secretions?
I don't see how you can be a liberationist without being vegan. The exploitation of animals isn't solely based on industrialization, it goes all the way down to backyard chickens and the commodification of their eggs. How can you be a liberationist but not see this? It's like being a feminist and being ok with traditional gender roles, makes no sense.
I would argue that it’s possible if you believe that from a logical and ethical standpoint that the production and consumption of animal products is wrong but you lack the willpower to fully give up consuming said products, however despite that, you recognize that you are an imperfect person for that reason.
But that's an ethical inconsistency. All you have to do is spend half a year or so finding alternatives, many people go cold turkey, there's tons of resources and centuries worth of recipes. The transition isn't practically hard and most able bodied neurotypicals have no excuse to completely avoid it. How could you genuinely be for animal lib and ignore your participation in this?
When we learn that a certain company is supporting genocide or using slave labor we boycott them and spread the word, since boycotts are effective. Animal products are inherently abusive and don't have a sustainable ethical model of production. So to participate in this exploitation runs contrary to any liberationist viewpoint.
This hypothetical person isn't much of an animal liberationist, they may be an aspiring one or wtvr, but calling themselves that is like a centrist Kamala supporter saying they're antifa. It's like a TERF calling themselves punk. Veganism happens to be a much clearer baseline than all those others btw, I don't think its importance is debatable in the slightest
I never said it’s not an ethical inconsistency. If you recognize that you are imperfect because your diet doesn’t reflect your moral beliefs then you are inherently recognizing that there exists some sort of moral inconsistency. What I would ask is whether or not that inconsistency justifies writing them off. I would say it doesn’t, at least not necessarily.
If your behavior is SIGNIFICANTLY at odds with your stated convictions, then you are either dishonest or indecisive. Either way, the label does not, at present, apply. If someone donates to PETA but then goes on to abuse animals it isn't some tricky grey area that's tough to navigate.
If I question a welfarist on why they still consume animal products and their answer is that they've decided to give up and not try veganism because they accept their flaws, then what reason do I have to be charritable and understanding? I don't accept those particular flaws and most importantly I don't accept the complacency of not challenging them. They can call themselves something accurate until they make up their mind.
I feel like to use a certain label that relates to specific actions and stances one must actually align with them. Failure to adhere to certain values from time to time is fine, but if the intention is to keep doing the ethically inconsistent thing then it's hypocritical to use the label. You can't be vegan and INTEND to UNNECESSARILY consume animal products and you can't be animal lib and willingly participate in the exploitation of animals.
Ok so what you’re saying is that if someone consumes animal products then they don’t actually believe it’s wrong to do so?
No I'm saying they're not earnest about their animal liberationist stance. You can beloeve sth you do is unethical but still do it it's not impossible, but it's incompatible eith activist labels that expect you to stand for what you claim you do
Then what do you think would be a more proper label? Most non vegans often come up with artificial justifications for animal product production in order to avoid having to do any type of self confrontation. People who are at least willing to bite the bullet and admit that vegans are right are different enough to where I think they should be classified under some type of subgroup within the non vegans.
If you don’t have the willpower to not abuse animals, then what value would you bring? A person like that would fold at the slightest inconvenience or questioning of the worldview. So no, they probably wouldn’t advocate for liberation in practice. You can think about it in your head all you want but that’s useless, no one cares.
If they pay for animal exploitation while protesting against it, I think they are ineffective and hypocrites.
A few edge cases may be possible here. E.g freegans, ostrovegans, people using eggs/wool from rescued animals, and children (or people in general) with no full control on their food/clothing etc all arguably can be non-vegan and animal liberationist while being as effective as they can without being hypocrites. Imho.
Oh, and possibly those uneducated on the topic. They are still ineffective, but not hypocrites.
I would argue that its understandable if you believes from a logical and ethical standpoint that the production and consumption of animal products is wrong but you lack the willpower to fully give up consuming said products, however despite that, you recognize that they are an imperfect person for that reason.
If you still believe that such people hypocrites then that’s fine but I would push back on the notion that they are ineffective and deserve to be written off. Hypocrisy is only bad if it makes it unclear what their actual beliefs are or if they’re trying to claim they don’t need to take responsibility themselves. Neither of those things are true about the type of person I just described.
It's not an opinion, but a fact they are ineffective in all but a few possible niche cases. The exploitation and harm done to animals by these people paying for it is larger than what is avoided.
E.g. instead of attending an animal rights protest, the animals would be better off if they spent time learning how to go vegan.
But of course, it's less bad to be a non-vegan who fights for animal rights than simply a non-vegan. However it is even better to be vegan without fighting for animal rights at all.
You can walk and chew gum at the same time. Can’t you still include them while also heavily encouraging them to go vegan? There’s someone who commented who ethically believes the same thing as vegans and wants to be vegan but has difficulty changing their diet to be fully vegan. I’m curious to know why you would be wary about including someone like that. I feel like someone like them is less of a liability and more of a future ally that can be useful if you were to take them under your wing but feel free to tell me where you might disagree.
I'll take any topical ally that I can. So yeah, if we e.g. can ban fur sales in the UK with the help of non-vegans, I'll take that help no problem.
But if we are talking animal liberation, the end goal can only be full veganism. That requires people doing it to be vegan. Because how can someone who eats eggs and dairy convince someone else to give up those things without being disingenuous?
Even support roles that don't require talking are tricky. E.g. when I'm talking to someone during street outreach, it is not uncommon for them to say something like "but some of your people's shoes are leather" or "but you're not all vegans, are you?" In those moments, I must be able to reply honestly and decisively "those shoes are all made of vegan leather and yes, we are all vegan". If I want to have a shot to make progress with them anyway.
I can totally understand that concern and yes it can be easy for a non vegan to say “then why aren’t you vegan yourself?” However I think there is value to having a non vegan who is at least in the right headspace.
A big issue I see with non vegans is that they don’t have the willpower to change their diet and they believe that you can’t be against animal product production unless you’re vegan. In order to “resolve” this conundrum they artificially come up with some justification as to why eating animals is ethical.
What I respect about the type of animal liberationist that I described is that they are willing to bite the bullet and admit they are imperfect human beings instead of taking whatever position is most convenient for them. Do you think it’s possible that by including such people in vegan activism that it can help convince non vegans to think more in this way?
I'll try one last approach. Let's try this logic on another topic:
What do you think about that?
I would first ask you why you personally think it’s bad for women’s activists to be associated with the person you just described. I’m not saying they should be associated with someone like that I just want to make sure we’re on the same page first.
Imagine how well this press conference would go down from the boss of the women's charity: "Yes we are aware Mr X regularly hits his wife. But we gladly accept his money as a donor".
No, it would be a bad idea and people wouldn't like it.
You didn’t answer my question. I want specific concrete logical reasons beyond just saying “it feels wrong”. I’ll give you two example reasons and you can add to them if you think there are more.
Hitting your wife is an immoral that action that someone should almost always condemned for
Associating with someone who still hits their wife will dilute the fight for women’s right and decrease it’s cultural potency
Also please refrain from immediately connecting this back to veganism. We’ll get there, I just want to first make sure we’re on the same page with the wife hitting scenario.
I don't require every person to have exactly the same beliefs as I do to get along with them.
Like there was this Malick film a while back. My friend was super surprised that I liked it because it had such a 'deist message' according to him. I kinda saw what he meant. But I had to point out to him that I'm not going to find many films to like if I only watch ones where the director has the same spiritual beliefs and politics that I do.
When I first got into animal rights stuff, MOST of the people participating were vegetarians. Only a few were vegan. And there were even some who were neither.
I'm not going to gatekeep our local dog rescue group for only fosters that are vegan. We already don't have enough.
It’s great to care about how animals are treated even if you’re not vegan.
It's difficult to see why someone would be an "animal liberationist" and not be vegan - after all, these are two sides of the same coin, surely? Animal liberation, as I understand it, is the idea that other animals should have basic rights - be free and not chattel property, be protected from cruelty and suffering, and not be used unfairly. That is exactly the same ethical reasoning for veganism.
Of course, everyone is free to choose how far they go in enacting these principles, so I would suggest that you are simply describing someone who agrees with these principles but does not enact them as much as they could. I guess I'd not label them as either an animal liberationist nor a vegan, but rather someone who has adopted these principles to the extent they are willing.
I am not a vegan, just vegetarian, but I do source hunted game for my family when I can. Deer overpopulation is a serious threat to other wildlife and fauna, the deer are living freely without stress, and are generally killed very quickly. That and it’s free from a family friend, removing the meat consumption from corporations entirely.
[removed]
I've removed your post because it violates rule #4:
If you would like your post to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
I can imagine that they do obviously exist, but it seems quite strange.
“Liberation” farmers are the only people that know how to manage and take care of livestock. Generations of husbandry..
Some twit suggesting bovines should be kept like a dog is plainly ridiculous
This is demonstrably false when there are tons of animal sanctuaries caring for farmed animals without exploiting them, and while providing better medical care than a typical farm. What would even make something a "liberation" farm. You cannot effectively or authentically advocate for liberation of a group while simultaneously actively exploiting them and profiting off that exploitation.
I could see the argument for a vegetarian or other non-vegan advocating for animal liberation while consuming animal products, but not a farmer/rancher who is actively raising and killing animals.
Animal sanctuaries do keep liberated 'livestock' and they don't need to exploit them!
Bovine can't be kept as dogs for obvious reasons but they can be well taken care of. If I had the resources, I would be happy to take care of big animals, I take care of chickens, and I'm not a farmer.
My opinion is not very high. But then again, they are not trying to change me, and I'm not trying to follow them.
I think they are confused but I appreciate when their votes align with ours.
I know a person irl who is like this. He's a libertarian who lives on a bunch of land who thinks that the only "honorable" way to eat meat is to hunt it himself. I don't know the exact specifics of how that works, but I do know that he doesn't eat eggs or dairy. We've talked about why animals can have "honorable" deaths before, and ultimately he grounds it in his neopagan religion.
Tbh a lot of non-vegan animal liberationists seem to approach it from spirituality for some reason. I worry that they are a liability because there's almost always something else that makes them a lightning rod for the media, and then the focus is taken away from the animals.
That's like an anti-dog fight activist that spends the weekends betting on dog fights...
How could someone following that definition not be Vegan? Beyond massive hypocrisy.
Useful hypocrites. The more people fighting for animal rights the better, but pretty weird.
They seem to lack materialism
[removed]
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #2:
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
Hear hear!
What is your opinion on Big Oil CEOs who are also environmentalists?
Would you consider someone who owns slaves to be against slavery?
Harvey Weinstein donated to pro women causes all the time.
Weirdos