Animal Rights (AR) and Veganism are clearly two philosophies, or worldviews, with great overlap. Some believe they are concentric circles, with AR being the larger of the two; that is, veganism fitting within animal rights. I see the two as standing side-by-side, with much of the area shared though with at least one subtle yet important difference.
Veganism is quite straightforward and easily defined. Animal Rights, not so much. The Vegan Society in the UK, the standard bearer of veganism since the term was coined in 1944, defines Veganism as:
“A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as possible and practical—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty too, 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 arrived wholly or partly from animals.”
The concept of Animal Rights is nowhere near as cut-and-dried. There are as untold number of definitions as there are philosophies (and philosophers). While most agree on the basics, there is no unifying definition because there is no one agreed upon theory. Still, the general consensus revolves around an opposition to speciesism, a word coined by English psychologist Richard Ryder around 1970. Ryder defined speciesism as:
“A prejudice or attitude of bias in favor of the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species.”
Speciesism obviously takes a nod from other -isms. Just as it is prejudicial to favor one group over another for such arbitrary reasons as skin pigmentation, religious beliefs, geographic location, or gender, so is it prejudicial to draw a line at species, the definition of which, while far too involved for this column, can be very gray at best. More importantly, one must always take the long view when acknowledging discrimination of any stripe, while remembering past injustices to those excluded: slaves, indigenous peoples, women, the disabled, gays and lesbians, and on and on. Whenever and wherever discrimination occurs, it’s always an us vs. them scenario, with the us (those already with “rights”) making the rules…until the circle of compassion eventually widens and those formerly excluded gain entrance into it. The arc of the moral universe, if you will.
This is a complicated issue that cannot be debated, let alone solved, in a 600-word column, and there are countless books and philosophers discussing the intricacies ongoing. For this week’s shallow dive, however, the takeaway is a key issue where Veganism and AR do not always overlap. Animal Rights—sadly and wrongly, IMHO—gets caught up in endless debate among academics and adherents about morality, ability to feel pain, consciousness and/or self-awareness, utilitarianism vs. deontology (I kid you not), personhood, sentience, bodily integrity, subject of a life… ad (literally) nauseam. While philosophy certainly has its place, for the past half-century many an AR philosopher couldn’t see the forest for the trees.
Much like the word vegan “cuts out” the BS of vegetarian, Veganism cuts out the noise of AR and gets directly to the key issue: Life. A true vegan doesn’t care if a bivalve is sentient or can feel pain (an actual Reddit thread not long ago). Clams, mussels, oysters, etc. are animals and alive and are therefore off the menu. But can they feel pain? Doesn’t matter. They are animals and their lives, veganism states, are not ours for the taking. Simple, straightforward, and easily definable. 🌱
Have a question about veganism or animal rights? Email me. Not yet vegan? Eat one plant-based meal today. You can do it!
