As I understand it, the whole point of the vegan movement is to individually prevent catalyzing or contributing to animal suffering/exploitation. The wording of the definition by the Vegan Society is not exactly spot-on w.r.t. that purpose:
“Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, 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 derived wholly or partly from animals."
If you buy a leather jacket from a shop, it’s your money that’s the problem because it compensates the industry. If you find a leather jacket in a dumpster and wear it, that act does not contribute to the industry. It’s argueable whether wearing the jacket in public promotes the practice of buying leather. It seems borderline far-fetched. IMO it’s sufficiently non-supporting of the animal abuse to salvage leather from the trash.
Then if we consider eating a steak that was pulled from a dumpster, there is no question that it would be strictly out of alignment with the Vegan Society. If you serve the steak to others, that’s clearly promoting it. But if you eat the steak alone in private, there is no chance of promoting meat consumption or the farming that led to that.
So, ultimately the Vegan Society’s definition is flawed because it deviates from its own purpose. For me, these acts are compatible with being vegan:
- using animal products that were disposed of as waste (food and non-food), so long as the use does not promote the animal product
- stealing animal products, so long as the use does not promote the animal product
Stealing is interesting to consider because while a law-abiding vegan is really just a neutral stance, a thief actually causes harm to the supply chain that harms animals. So even if there is a slight promotion (e.g. you feed a stolen steak to others), the harm to the supply chain offsets that.
Not all exploitation is harmful
To “exploit” something is to use it. The term is usually used in the context of causing harm, but not necessarily. If I privately consume a steak I pulled out of a dumpster and avoid promoting to compensating the meat industry, I am technically “exploiting” the beef but no trace of my action caused harm to the animal.
So for the vegan definition to condemn “all forms of exploitation”, it’s off. We should only be focused on the harmful forms of exploitation. It entirely neglects symbiotic relationships. E.g. it’s technically “exploiting” an animal to have a pet (e.g. you use it for the emotional connection), and if it’s a cat or a dog, the animal benefits as well from that relationship.
FYI, the Vegan Society’s definition of veganism has changed over the years. The first published definition was:
The word veganism shall mean the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals.
which presumably referred only to exploitation in the harmful sense. I agree with you that the definition which currently appears on their website is flawed. Some people (including Nick Hiebert) have proposed a new definition:
An applied ethical position that advocates for the equal trait-adjusted application of commonplace human rights such as the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights to non-human sentient beings.
It’s also worth noting that Donald Watson, shortly before his death, allegedly voiced his complete agreement with Will Tuttle’s concept of veganism as expressed in The World Peace Diet. Among other things, Tuttle wrote:
The motivation in living a vegan lifestyle is the yearning to minimize the cruelty our actions cause others. The essence of veganism is nonviolence: conscientiously cultivating a mentality of respect and kindness toward others. If this motivation is absent, it is not veganism, and shouldn’t be called veganism. Thus, when some people say they are following a raw vegan diet, for example, they often mean that their food is uncooked and doesn’t include, as many raw diets do, raw eggs, raw milk, or raw fish oil. However, it is not a vegan diet if the motivation underlying it is personal health or purity. If these same people later decide that they would be healthier eating some chicken, fish, or cheese, they will typically say that they tried being vegan but it didn’t work for them. It’s obvious that they were never vegan, in fact, because their underlying motivation was other than what veganism calls for.
To respond to your post overall: I think that your points can generate important discussion and perhaps remind people to keep the focus on the intention behind veganism rather than on merely avoiding specific things.