On veganism and its scope

 In this post, I will attempt to identify the scope of veganism, meaning what is encompassed within the concept vs what is not.

If we look at the Vegan Society definition of veganism, which seems to be the most widely cited:

"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."

We see that a distinction is made between humans and animals. We see this in the line: "promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment," where they refer to humans and animals seperately. We can also see that in the beginning of the vegan movement, earlier definitions all made this distinction. I'll quote from this article from the vegan society:

"Although the vegan diet was defined early on it was as late as 1949 before Leslie J Cross pointed out that the society lacked a definition of veganism and he suggested '[t]he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man'. This is later clarified as 'to seek an end to the use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection, and by all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by man.'"

This distinction is in keeping with English language conventions, where the term "animal" is generally referring to nonhuman animals in most contexts, the exception being when speaking about biology. As an example, if I say "I hit an animal while driving," no one will interpret this to mean I possibly hit a human. Other context clue us into this as well, ie refering to humans use of animals for food, vivisection, or clothing, which are things that nonhuman animals have been generally used for, not humans. Thus we can conclude that veganism, as a movement, has been defined as being concerned with nonhuman animals, not humans. 

So, in what ways are animals exploited? Animals have their negative right to bodily autonomy (also can be thought of as the right to be free from bodily harm) violated in animal agriculture. Animals are enslaved, assaulted, murdered, raped, etc in animal agriculture, vivesection, etc. Veganism can then be said to be about recognizing this right for animals, which would end their commodification, slavery, and use by humans. Yes, what happens to animals is slavery, this is an appropriate 1-to-1 comparision to human rights violations, as both human slaves and animals were considered property with little in the way of rights or welfare protections. We can then say that veganism implies the same negative right for humans, as it would be contradictory to affirm this right for non-human animals but deny it to humans, as both are sentient. 

So, what does the above mean?

For one, it means that we can say veganism is about affirming non-human animals' right to be free from bodily harm, which includes things like slavery, assault, murder, rape, etc by humans. It is about affirming non-human animals' right to their own bodily autonomy. “[t]he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man” However, since veganism is only concerned with negative rights and not positive rights, and is further only concerned with the right to bodily autonomy for non-human animals, then it only implies those rights for humans. It certainly doesn't imply the many positive rights that are often advocated for by progressives, such as the right the gender affirming care, universal basic income, universal healthcare, etc. It doesn't imply the right of workers to own the means of production or to recieve the surplus value of their labor, etc. These other rights are simply outside the scope of veganism. We should also acknowledge that most of the aforementioned "rights," as well as most human rights, have no parallel to non-human animals and their societies. Does the "right to bear arms," or the right to vote, or the right to gender affirming care, the right to unionize, etc have any applicable meaning for animals? Can animals even "own the means of production" or operate a firearm? 

It also means that humans are *not* part of the definition of "animals" within the context of veganism. It also means that the term "exploitation" is limited to the right to be free from bodily harm or infringements on bodily autonomy. This is an important point to make, as many leftist vegans, seeking to integrate veganism into their broader ethical/political framework, have played fast and loose with the term "exploitation," conflating many things that are actually separate concepts.

As an example, a vegan marxist might feel that workers not recieving the surplus value of their labor is "exploitation." They may see marxism, and leftism more broadly, as ideologies that need to oppose "exploitation," and they see carnism as exploiting non-human animals. Thus, they feel that you must oppose all forms of exploitation in order to be consistent. They may further say something like "humans are animals too, and since veganism is about ending the exploitation of animals, you need to be a socialist in order to be vegan, because capitalism is exploitation." 

However, once we understand the proper scope of veganism, we see why this is incorrect. For one, marxism is concerned with humans, and not non-human animals, so right off the bat it is of no relevance to veganism, and there is no relationship between veganism and marxism. We could end our analysis there, as veganism is solely about non-human animals, thus there is no contradiction between not being a marxist and being vegan. 

That said, let us discuss the use of the term "exploitation." It creates a false equivalence and inserts certain political ideas into veganism, when the actual definition of veganism doesn't make any reference to socialism or anything of the sort. Yes, workers do not recieve the surplus value they generate under capitalism, and you may or may not consider this "exploitation" depending on your political beliefs, as liberal ideologies do not consider this exploitation. But, even if you did consider this exploitation, they are categorically different. Animals, as previously discussed, are enslaved, murdered, raped, assaulted, etc by humans and legally considered property. This is categorically different than a worker, who has numerous rights that non-human animals do not, particularly in a liberal democracy. The worker is also free to seek out different employment if he is unhappy at his current job, can attempt to start his own business, can organize with other workers in a union, etc. His position is categorically different from slavery, and thus conflating them under the term "exploitation" is creating a false equivalency. Thus, even if you do feel that workers not recieving the surplus value for their labor is exploitation, it is a type of exploitation that is outside of the scope of veganism.