Responding To A Critique: On Being “holier Than Thou”
Print This Post
Like other ethical positions, the worth of veganism isn’t measured in comparison to the actions of another. It relies on the acceptance of certain premises, or more accurately, an acknowledgment that I already hold these principles and this is the conclusion.
Veganism has both intrinsic and extrinsic worth. Extrinsically, for example, a plant-based diet is superior to any other because of the limited environmental externalities associated with it. Veganism is non-violence manifested. In its association with suffering, what and how much we eat is intimately connected to the amount of unnecessary or needless harm experienced in this world. Definitionally, veganism is a conscious rejection of directly causing suffering. Associated with these extrinsic benefits of veganism is its intrinsic worth. There is certainly an existential benefit to A) being principled and B) following the logic of your own beliefs to their conclusions.
As the “holier than thou” challenge assumes a relational context, which veganism rejects, it isn’t real. Sexism, for example, accepts certain premises that anti-sexism would challenge. If two individuals were cultivated in a society that believed sexist assumptions, and one of these people reasoned their way beyond this context, and, therefore, began to accept other non-sexist assumptions, this would parallel the situation where a vegan is confronted by a non-vegan (or vice versa). The anti-sexist’s articulation of his position is no more “holier than thou” than the vegan’s challenge to speciesist assumptions. However, in both instances, the worth of “veganism” and “anti-sexism” isn’t measured by this relationship between the two individuals with differing opinions. Both concepts have independent value of their own.
Stated simply, I do not think that I am “better than you” because your relationship to me doesn’t factor into the equation. You don’t matter, nor do I. We are simply having a dispute about ethical principles.
It is curious that the same individuals who would criticize animal rights advocates for being “holier than thou” would most certainly not label us as such if our position was “racism is wrong.” The challenge I would level against the racist is logically parallel in many respects to my critique of speciesism. However, herein lies the difference. Those challenging me for being “holier than thou” are assuming a negative answer to the ethical question – “Are nonhuman animals things” – and, therefore, they assume that AR activist are suggesting that they are better than them in some way that doesn’t make any sense – It’s just a choice so what is the big deal, e.g. While, concerning the issue of racism, they are assuming a positive answer to the ethical question – “Are black humans things” – and, therefore, because they are in agreement with me, there seems to be something less offensive in this challenge – It’s objective morality, e.g.
This isn’t reasonable given that the context of the discourse is essentially the same. However, it’s no longer a situation where we both agree that this or that ought to be a certain way; therefore, irrational feelings arise – a threat or a sense that you are “being judged” – as a means to respond to the challenge.
With this in mind, then, I might advance a counter-argument: When you advocate the consumption of animal flesh, are you acting “holier than thou”? If one challenge in this regard is valid, doesn’t its counter-challenge have to be valid as well?
While there certainly is an existential harm associated with someone who chooses to consume flesh – a moral offense -, I am not actually harmed by someone’s non-veganism. It is not me who suffers when needlessly killed to satisfy the passing pleasure of human animals. The pain is not my pain. Perhaps because those who are being unethically exploited do not possess voices we understand (Or refuse to listen too?), the animal rights movement is a conduit for their rage. Accordingly, passions often run high, which implies a personal stake in the matter. However, this is not the case. I am not the oppressed.
Please forgive our passion because it doesn’t suggest our own purity, just the necessity of the crisis. However, always remember that if it sounds judgmental open yourselves up to a logical consistency test and ask, “Should human rights advocates be accused of acting ‘holier than thou’?”
Crossposted @ That Vegan Girl
I’m glad you addressed this issue. It’s one of my pet peeves.
Saying vegans are holier than thou is just a way to dismiss veganism without any thought.
Moreover, it’s one type of egoism to believe all other forms of life on this planet are merely resources for humans, which is what many nonvegans think. But it’s a whole new level of egoism to assume veganism isn’t about justice, compassion, ethics, health, or the future and instead to think it’s all about being morally superior to nonvegans. Ugh.
I always take it as a judgment. They feel threatened and as though they are being judged. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. I suppose it really matters on the person. If they are insecure about their stance or more likely they haven’t taken a stance, they just are how they’ve always been, then rather then get defensive they should stop and think about why they are feeling these emotions. If they feel as though they need to defend themselves without an accusation then it might be guilt they are feeling. If it is guilt then a better response would be one of interest. Most vegans I’ve met are friendly and would love to talk about why they are vegan.
~ Recent blog post: Recommendation Withdrawn ~
First, your arguments are sound and the article very interesting. But I think that “I am not actually harmed by someone’s non-veganism” could be untrue. If you think about the environmental considerations, couldn’t it be said that since the livestock production industry creates a significant portion of the greenhouse gases that people eating meat actually harms you by way of harming the planet? It could at least count for possible harm at a future point, which an ethical egoist would consider a valid reason to reject the non-harm assumption. I know it’s straying a little from your holier-than-thou topic, but I’m interested in your philosophical position on this!
To begin, ethical egoism doesn’t require doing anything one wants to do in an effort to fulfill short-term desires; however, it does posit a normative conception of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ that acting in one’s self-interest is necessarily right. Therefore, it follows that selfishness is categorically ‘good’ but qualifying one’s selfishness with prudence is rational. Within this framework, because of the existence of the ‘externalities’ associated with non-veganism you outlined, veganism does follow for the ethical egoist if environmental harms, for example, can be linked to violating what is in his self-interest.
Libertarianism seems to be ethical egoism politicized and militates more strongly against ‘harm’. On the premise that one should be free to do as she wishes so long as she doesn’t cause another individual harm, the externalities associated with non-veganism could be considered an act of aggression (harm) and therefore immoral. My non-harm assumption then would certainly be challenged.
~ Recent blog post: A choice/need problem and hunting ~
Its unfair to label vegans as “holier than thou”. But let’s discuss the vegan community elephant in the room. Many, I would say most vegans lead by example, opening people’s minds to another way of thinking about the world, and positively encouraging others to be kind to all creatures, and to care for the environment. Unfortunately, there are vegans who express their veganism in a negative fashion, with frowning or bitter disapproval and frequently an unfortunate obsessive quality. These are usually young or emotionally immature people who do more harm than good to the cause of veganism by this attitude, not least by frequently socially isolating themselves. There are others who damage veganism by being so full of expressed overflowing emotion or puritanical zeal they are unable to carry on an intelligent discussion. Of course this is a topic that should be emotionally fraught- anger, sadness, grief, all those things are appropriate responses to the needless suffering of fellow creatures. However, when presented in the same way a furious, melodramatic religious zealot with no social skills would present their religious beliefs- this frequently does more harm than good to the cause, and creates damaging stereotypes. I’ll just say this- no one REALLY likes a puritan except for other puritans, but EVERYBODY likes vegan cupcakes! Let’s try to reach out and include, not exclude.
Any claims that certain advocacy methods “cause more harm than good” ought to be backed up with credible, reliable evidence.
Two reasons:
a) The claim that that certain advocacy methods “cause more harm than good” , such as “puritanical zeal damages the movement”, may not be true.
b) People who use the methods that some people say cause more harm than good are generally not people who are easily convinced to behave otherwise. (They’re stubborn and nutty or… effective and right.)
I suggest that if you’re opposed to certain advocacy methods, and you’re interested in truly changing the minds and behaviors of those who use such methods, you ought to either:
a) make an ethical argument for why your preferred method is better or
b) make a stronger, evidence-based argument for why your preferred method is more effective.
Thank you Lida
At this time almost 75% of people who try vegan/vegetarian diets fail. Of those, certainly, are many who simply did not “do it right” but there are many who simply cannot survive. With my family not just one but 2 genetic disorders were triggered by our efforts to move over to a Veg diet. I am now quite suspicious of a moralism that demands complete dietary compliance to be considered “moral”, shames people who are not members and uses poor science to make overreaching statements. Taking all our information ONLY from those who succeed limits our understanding criminally.
There are, as yet, no hard, multi generational studies that cover an exclusive vegan population through generations. Most of the studies I looked back over really only applied to vegetarians and often vegetarians of a sort that included the consumption of bugs. We need to clean out the sketchy science. Stop pretending that not eating meat is all we have to do to preserve the environment. Any time our food is grown far away our food is subject to killing animals via poisons and all that which goes into and comes out of their transit.
I have been on several discussion boards now that talk about this and am quite horrified that when people try to bring up health issues, environmental issues and any ethic that is not Vegan they are condemned horrifically and slandered as animal haters and liars, even when the people in question have given up as much meat as their medical situation allows and are fully involved in the fight to end such horrors as the CAFOs.
I have to say, I respectfully disagree with Alex, that being so ugly and emotionally violent to people has any good result.