This post is, to a small extent, a response to this post by Lincolnq about taboo-ing the "V word."[1] It is also a response to a general attitude I see in EA spaces that is dismissive of veganism as a practice and seems inclined to prefer donation, even in very small amounts. Mostly, it's a case that being vegan makes you a more effective altruist.
None of this post rests directly on the claim that veganism actually reduces the number of animals raised, tortured, and killed in expectation. I propose 5 main benefits of veganism to EAs: better moral reasoning, more credibility for non-EAs, better signaling about small animals, a constant sense of purpose and motivation in small acts of abstinence, and veganism's abolitionist praxis.
Note: I'm a hypocrite, and am not quite vegan.
As much as we pride ourselves on checking our own moral and cognitive biases, we would be bold to claim that we are completely successful. If you, like me, are complicit in the animal torture apparatus that is factory farming, you might be underweighting the suffering of certain animals or classes of animals, since it feels uncomfortable to acknowledge the depth of the pain you are causing. You might also be spending less time thinking about animal issues for the same reason.
I am a strict vegetarian and am in the process of shifting towards veganism. Even still, I notice myself thinking less than proportionally about dairy cows and egg-laying hens. I do my best to fix this, but their suffering is more uncomfortable for me to ponder than that of shrimps and pigs, and so they are underrepresented in my passive stream of animal welfare thoughts.
To me, one of EAs biggest appeals is its insistence on a moral obligation to discern truth and act on it. Going vegan is an act of epistemic humility that is aligned with that obligation; in doing so, we recognize that we are never fully capable of separating our moral thoughts from our feelings and day-to-day practices (and that, maybe, we shouldn't always try to).
It is confusing to non-EAs when an EA says that factory farming is among the biggest moral atrocities but continues to participate in it. It seems hypocritical, diminishing the individual EA's perceived moral credibility and thereby the credibility of EA as a whole. We should be careful to avoid the suggestion that, to participate in effective animal advocacy, one must be vegan, but we should not go about this by ditching veganism altogether. We can maintain our moral credibility without creating a barrier to entry simply by letting newcomers know that we blame systems, not people, and are welcoming to animal activists who work at all levels, dietary and non-dietary alike. Veganism can still be encouraged.
Half-measures leave non-EA onlookers with the impression that only certain animals matter. It occasionally comes up in conversation that I am vegetarian. Many people have responded to this with some variant on "Oh cool! I'm pescetarian!" or "Great! I don't eat mammals." I have also gotten responses about adopting shelter animals.
I have an inkling that people group vegetarianism, pescetarianism, avoiding beef, and maybe eating insects together, and view veganism as a separate category that sees all animals as having moral value. "Animal activism" surfaces images of the better funded and more culturally salient companion animal shelters. Veganism is, by nature, all-encompassing, and leaves no room for exceptions or unique emphasis on individual species. Being vegan, thus, conveys the breadth of our moral priorities and leaves non-EAs less room to align their view of us with their own ideologies and diets.[2]
I will admit that this is my weakest point, partly since veganism is now associated with health trends and environmental movements. Even if that is the case, though, having a recognizable name is crucial for us to curate veganism's image as a moral movement, not a health fad. I'll borrow from Lincolnq's point about the importance of the term "sexual harassment" in naming and then preventing the behavior. We must have a recognizable term to build a movement behind, and it must be a movement that opposes all animal cruelty, especially to inverterbates and small animals.
Lincolnq brings up the Ridglan Rescue to argue that "there are lots of pro-animal people who eat meat." I think this is a category error. Many people are pro-dog and vehemently oppose cruelty to them. Very few of them carry that same energy to opposing factory farming. Advocacy for dogs is not an instance of the broad moral circles EA aims to cultivate. Veganism is.
If you need such a reminder, checking ingredient labels when making purchases makes it difficult not think about animal welfare on a daily basis. It's a constant reminder of the scale of factory farming and the wide reach of animal products. It is also motivating; every such decision reaffirms your own commitment, and is a tangible bit of change that builds your sense of purpose and momentum.
Most prominent EA animal organizations are welfarist by design. It is at times demoralizing that one of the crown achievements of EA animal welfare is the most effective institution in history at making shrimps die a little less consciously, probably. I say this not to disparage SWP. I think they do amazing work. Welfarism is great and, in my view, certainly outperforms abolitionism on the margin, but welfare progress alone will never lead to the end of factory farming, and will likely not get it to a state of net moral positivity (at least for the animals in the farms). Veganism is abolitionist by design and steers the movement toward the aim of eventual abolition, and is thus a more motivating project for its current- and would-be activists.
I understand this is not a complete, line by line response to that post, and I wasn't aiming to do that.
I will grant that veganism, often interpreted deontologically, is not always well-suited to handling tradeoffs and prioritization. Still, with veganism defining our aims, EAs can debate how to order our steps towards a less cruel world
