Corey Wrenn's critique of Vegan Outreach literature
A critique of Vegan Outreach literature
Downed calves: direct result of the dairy industry.
Popular utilitarian welfarist group, Vegan Outreach, maintains that in order to help non-human animals now, we must adopt a strategy which aims to reduce suffering, regardless of means. However, there are critical inconsistencies, misconceptions, and outright misuses of terminology which undermine any real benefit to non-human animals. Despite their self-designation as a “[…] nonprofit organization dedicated to reducing animal suffering by promoting a vegan lifestyle,” Vegan Outreach in fact hinders veganism with notions of extremism and promotion of reductionism or vegetarianism.
Veganism as Extremist
Vegan Outreach states in their 2009 “Why Vegan” pamphlet:
The 2002 version states:
Being vegan isn’t about being perfect or pure—it’s about reducing suffering ().
The 2008 Guide to Cruelty-Free Eating furthers that veganism can be difficult:
Being vegan isn’t about avoiding a list of ingredients […] ().
[…] especially if you try to change too fast or hold yourself to too high a standard. The important thing is to do the best you can ().It’s a good thing that society doesn’t hold the same low standards for rapists. It would be great news for molesters everywhere if they could avoid moral obligations by simply doing the best they can.
The implication in the above quotes is that veganism is somehow difficult, unobtainable, militant, or even utopian. Rather than defining veganism as a moral refusal to participate in violence or the absolute baseline required for taking the exploitation and use of non-human animals seriously, veganism, is instead framed as one of many opportunities for reducing suffering. In effect, this statement refutes the moral necessity of veganism and opens the door to reductionism. If veganism isn’t about being perfect or pure, what’s the harm in sneaking a donut with your morning coffee?
Remember: Continuing to eat cheese while avoiding meat and eggs does much more good than scrapping the whole idea because you can’t be completely consistent (Guide to Cruelty-Free Eating ).
Sneaking that whey-tainted donut might be acceptable for Vegan Outreach:
Apparently having moral consistency and absolute abstinence against an evil is obsessive. Does the same go for child abuse, rape, murder, or cannibalism? Would it be acceptable to beat a child to avoid appearing obsessive? Is it impossible to completely abstain from beating a child? Of course it is, and there’s nothing obsessive about holding abstinence from violence and wrongdoing as the absolute baseline.
For instance, it can be prohibitively expensive and time-consuming to shun every minor or hidden animal-derived ingredient. More importantly, avoiding an ever-increasing list of these ingredients can make us appear obsessive, and thus lead others to believe that compassionate living is impossible. This defeats our purpose: ending cruelty to animals!” (Guide to Cruelty-Free Eating 2008: )
Vegetarianism and Reductionism as Progress
We can already see progress in just the past decade—public concern for farmed animals’ interests and condemnation of factory farms, as well as more vegetarians, near-vegetarians, and vegetarian products (A Meaningful Life: Making a real Difference in Today’s World 2008: )Is reductionism and vegetarianism really progress? Is the underlying moral injustice being addressed if we continue to participate in non-human animal use? Is the focus on factory farms and the ignoring of exploitation in “humane” farming progress?
Despite the organization’s name, “Vegan” Outreach, the organization is merely an animal advocacy organization which utilizes veganism as one of many tools to reduce suffering:
The notion of veganism, vegetarianism, and reductionism as mere tools is perhaps most evident in their publication and distribution of the “Try Vegetarian!” pamphlet:
In order to prevent the most suffering, it’s important we each take an approach we can sustain. After reviewing this booklet, some people may decide to go vegan immediately; others may choose to eat fewer animal products and explore more vegetarian meals. […] …veganism is best viewed as a tool for reducing suffering (Why Vegan 2009: 14).
As an organization that openly advocates vegetarianism, is it really appropriate to operate under the name, “Vegan Outreach?”
[…] eating vegetarian is likely the most effortless—and enjoyable!—way to have a profoundly positive impact as often as every day” (Try Vegetarian 2003).
Vegan Outreach’s 2008 “Guide to Cruelty-Free Eating,” intended for meat eaters, vegetarians, and vegans alike, presents a results-based approach:
When you first discover the reality of modern animal agriculture, avoiding all producers from factory farms might seem too big a change. But don’t be overwhelmed—just take small steps. For example, you could eliminate meat from certain meals or on certain days. As you get used to eating less meat and find alternatives you enjoy, it may become easier to eliminate meat altogether (Guide to Cruelty-Free Eating 2008: 3).As a vegan outreach organization, it seems strange that veganism is not promoted as a baseline, but here, reductionism is suggested to be morally acceptable and consistent. Furthermore, this statement specifically targets factory farming. Support of “humane” farming, then, could logically be assumed by readers to constitute a “small step.” After all, it’s all about reducing suffering, right?
Can reduction of suffering ever truly be accomplished and can abolition of non-human animal use ever be reached so long as so-called vegan organizations maintain that the exploitation of non-human animals is sometimes acceptable?
Ultimately, living with compassion means striving to maximize the good we accomplish, not following a set of rules or trying to fit a certain label. From eating less meat to being vegan, our actions are only a means to an end: decreasing suffering (Guide to Cruelty-Free Eating 2008: )
The argument that vegetarianism somehow makes a real difference for non-human animals is an empirical fallacy. There is no continuum whereby vegetarians necessarily progress to veganism. Further, vegetarianism does nothing to challenge the property status of non-human animals. Often, vegetarianism causes more suffering than it reduces in that many vegetarians simply replace non-human animal flesh with non-human animal excretions. Milk, eggs, and other non-flesh non-human animal products involve far more suffering than that of flesh.
For every person you persuade to become vegetarian, dozens of farmed animals will be spared from suffering each year! (A Meaningful Life 2008: )
Veganism as the Moral Baseline
Vegan Outreach posits:
The answer to that question is: “GO VEGAN.” Veganism is the only moral choice if we truly want to reduce suffering, respect the moral standing of non-human animals, and ultimately reach total abolition of non-human animal use. There’s nothing hard about it, there’s nothing obsessive about it, and there’s nothing inconsistent about it.
The question isn’t, “Is this vegan?” but, “What is best for preventing suffering?” (Guide to Cruelty-Free Eating )
More About: abolition · animal rights · welfarism