Question
I am an animal lover
Alternatives
I’d love to be vegan but... I was vegan/vegetarian but…
Summary
Noble aspirations are fine, but it is putting them into practice that defines us. When our lives are reflected upon, including by ourselves, we will be judged more by what we have done than what we wish we had done. The most important step in the process of self-actualisation is to make our lives consistent with our ethical aspirations. We may love animals or wish there was less suffering in the world, but if we don’t believe these things strongly enough to alter our behaviour, our good intentions are largely meaningless. Kind thoughts, prayers, virtue signalling, and policing language become problematic when they are the extent of your activism. Love, compassion and kindness must be active. It is the realm of sentient experience that ultimately matters, not the construction of your internal world.
Discussion
Veganism is an idea that has become more embedded in the mainstream in recent decades. Our society has become more conscious, often uncomfortably so, of the ethical conversation around the treatment of animals, and by extension veganism. Our world was very different only recently, when few people knew what the word vegan meant. Elder vegans will recount having to constantly explain their veganism at the most basic level; regularly even having to spell the unfamiliar word for people. This was a time when most people thought being vegetarian was about abstaining only from red meat. "What about fish?" was the most common question vegetarians were asked. Veganism was a whole other level. Personally, I had to explain what being vegan meant, and how it was spelled, almost every time I went out to eat with new people. In developed societies now, we have progressed; most people are at least vaguely familiar with and can even spell the term. It is now even common to see vegan options on restaurant menus, products marked vegan-friendly, and even to bump into vegans in social situations. It may not always feel like a sign of progress, but we also now often bump into people who have considered veganism or even tried it. All these are positive signs that veganism and the ideas it represents are on an upward historical trend.
We seem to be heading, all too slowly, towards a vision of the future many vegans believe in: that the moral arc of history will bend towards justice for animals. We assume that the widespread embrace of vegan philosophy is inevitable; that humanity's collective ethical progress will take us beyond the commonplace disregard, oppression and slaughter of other animals. We believe in a society where one day people will be mystified that so many people unquestioningly participated in this vast atrocity against animals.
Many things once considered commonplace we now consider barbaric. A common question often asked of eminent ethical thinkers is: "What do we currently think of as normal behaviour that future generations will look upon as barbaric?" I have seen this question asked to people like Noam Chomsky, Steven Pinker, Martha Nussbaum, and Richard Dawkins. They all replied that our treatment of animals was a likely candidate. Sadly, few of these eminent thinkers have followed through with this belief and gone on to become vegan or even vegetarian themselves. When I met Peter Singer, I asked him how he felt about his conversation on the topic of animal rights with Richard Dawkins. Singer told me how hard it was for him, given his high regard for Dawkins as a thinker, to understand his cognitive dissonance in knowing what we do to animals is wrong, but being unable to change his behaviour towards them.
Ethical Consistency
It would be very inefficient to think through everything we do in our lives. Instead, we live mostly through habit and conformity. Most people do this with respect to eating animals; it is something they have always done but have never questioned. Here we get to a moral question: is it worse to do something you know is wrong than to do the same thing without knowing it is wrong? For the animals, their suffering is the same regardless of the intentions or knowledge in the mind of the person committing or paying for their abuse. We might say someone who worries about the lives of animals in factory farms has a kinder personality. Still, if they do not change their behaviour towards those animals, then their effect upon the world is no different to a less kind person. If our ethical framework allows us to contribute to animals spending nasty, brutish and short lives in factory farms and slaughterhouses, partly because we can't be bothered learning how to eat or cook something else, then it is a very narrow ethical outlook. People may look to the ethical norms of the culture around them for support in their own behaviours, and find justification in the fact that they are only doing what their family, friends, co-workers and much of society do, but ethics is not a popularity contest. Indeed, the opposite is probably more often true. The most powerful and noble expressions of ethics are when people reject conformity to the society around them, and claim their most meaningful individuality, their ethical individuality.
Moral imperatives
The fact that so many people know about veganism is a good thing. We should celebrate the positives that this change in social narrative represents. We must remember, however, that we want the focus to be on the animals and not on vegans. Many people will be happier shooting the vegan messenger instead of engaging with the issue that we represent. Those who argue against veganism are not necessarily our most powerful adversaries, however. The opposite of engagement is often not argument, but indifference. Those who are willing to discuss animal rights or veganism, even if they defend a counter position, are in some way our allies in ensuring the topic is in people's consciousness. It is mindlessness that underlies animal oppression. We push animal industries beyond the edges of our urban environments, out of sight, out of mind. Truth dies in darkness, and the darkness of factory farms and slaughterhouses is very deep indeed. By encouraging ethical discussion about the status of animals, we are moving society forwards. So long as the discussion about our moral duties towards animals remains a rational discussion, it is one that vegans must ultimately win.
We must remember in making our case that not everyone is in the same place in their thoughts about this topic. There are many people in the world whose minds are closed to change, or happily dwell in selfishness and egocentrism, and they will actively resist our calls for kinder treatment of animals. That is not everyone, however. There are many decent people who eat animal products because they just haven't yet given it the moral attention it deserves. There are many reasons for this, life situations and so on, but one is that we take our cues from the people around us. A relevant psychology experiment showed our tendency towards conformity. Researchers had a research subject sit in a room along with some confederates of the researchers, who pretended they were also research subjects. The researchers set a smoke machine outside of a door to the room, and blew smoke in under the door. Whether or not the research subject worried about the smoke was highly correlated with whether the confederates of the researchers displayed any worry about it. If the researchers asked their confederates to pretend to be worried that the smoke meant there was a fire, the research subject was more likely to be worried. If the researchers told their confederates to all act like the smoke was nothing, the research subject was more likely to act that way as well. This is relevant to the subject of animal rights, because much of our society acts like it is nothing to be concerned about, and this makes it harder for individuals to escape that framing and see that it is something we should be concerned about. There are many reasons that, due to social conditioning, decent people might be resistant to our message on behalf of animals. On some deeper level, it is good people's self-interest to be open to a positive change, but we need to make a positive and consistent case to help them see it.
Engaging people
Hope can be a double-edged sword when you are trying to help animals. If someone starts explaining why they might consider or have considered a vegan diet, and says there is some hurdle in the way, most vegans will instinctively want to help the person overcome their hurdle. This is the natural and logical thing to do, but then you get into the complexity that often people are more interested in justifying why they can't be vegan than they are in seriously looking to change. Coming up with an easy fix to their stated problem isn't helping them; it just makes them have to come up with another reason. If this cycle repeats a bit, you might even start annoying the person, because you are backing them into a corner. They are being a little disingenuous, but maybe not consciously, and they certainly don't want it revealed to them. The fact that you tried to help the animals and the person here, but ended up annoying the person, doesn't mean you did anything wrong. Even when we start to suspect someone is just making excuses, the best policy is usually to treat what they say at face value. We should avoid making negative assumptions about why someone is resisting positive change, and try to give them the benefit of the doubt. It's easy to misjudge others' intentions or viewpoints; we all fall into stereotypes and assumptions. Just because someone is asking a lot of questions and being sceptical doesn't mean they aren't open to change. In a society where people are a mark for others, where people are always trying to convince others to buy their product, follow their religion, or to believe or do some other thing they want, we should expect people to be a bit defensive. We should make a good case, and we should make it clear what our motivations are: the animals.
Perhaps the first thing to remember is that, no matter how well thought-through and expressed all your points are, it is rare that at the end of a single conversation you will have converted someone to veganism. Sometimes being too good at arguing, and having all the points on hand to every question, can even overwhelm people. We might be better off listening more and focusing on one or two main points that are most important to the person we are talking to. Having a detailed, conversation-ending answer for every justification you have heard a hundred times before, drowning a person in facts rather than empathy, and ignoring their unique, complex emotional reality can all be counterproductive. We need to have the conversation the person needs and is open to, which helps them change their frame of reference. We definitely don't want to repeat the standard conversation we have rehearsed in our minds. We also often embark upon conversations we think would have resonated with us before we were vegan, without recognising that we all have different levels of openness to change in different contexts in our lives. There is not one conversation, but perhaps a different one for each person, at each different moment in their lives. Perhaps the most helpful thing to remember in talking to random people is: "We are not our audience".
Effective conversation
What will make people change? When people are asked why they became vegan, they will often give a very specific answer. For instance, they read a pamphlet, watched a video or were positively influenced by a person. No doubt these were pivotal moments, but there is usually a long process that leads to people being receptive to the right information at that moment. Why did someone decide to read that pamphlet, talk to that person, or watch that video? A foundation needs to be laid in each of us, a crack in the conformity of our minds opened so that a little light can seep in. A different world/self might need to be made conceptually possible before there is a chance for greater change. Does someone even know about factory farms, or do they assume animals probably have reasonable lives in them, or do they think the way we treat animals might be wrong but don’t know what to do about it, or are they vegetarian because they instinctively think killing animals is wrong but don’t properly understand the death and suffering in the egg and dairy industries, or are they attracted to the idea of veganism but just need to know what steps to take, or something else unique to them. Chances to sincerely discuss our relationship with the non-human world are precious; we should not squander them with the discussion we want to have, engage in circling debate, or give people information overload. We have to focus on the person in front of us and how we can help them on the next step of their ethical journey, even if they don’t know they are on one yet.
Communication is hard because people are complex and unique; they are often so very different from us as to be almost unrelatable. Drawing broad lines here, some people will judge a discussion by its rationality; they are best reached via a clear, coherent argument, and too much emotion will make them feel they are being manipulated. Others are more sensitive to the interpersonal aspects of a conversation. Too little emotion might come off as cold. Facts aren’t inconsequential to the latter sort of person, but an emotional connection with them, and the animals are more likely to resonate. People have different life experiences, cultures, sensitivities, and levels of tolerance for difficult topics. People also have psychological defence mechanisms, and many will instinctively turn away from discussions or depictions of suffering, perhaps as echoes or reminders of their own pain or trauma. Some people might be willing to hear the full horrors of animal farming, and others might need more of a focus on the positive alternatives to animal farming. People are also at different stages of knowledge about issues and varying openness to change; in short, some need to know why, but others need to know how. Blundering into a system as complex as the human mind without understanding it is usually a mistake. If someone says "I can’t be vegan", we have to start by listening carefully to what follows next.
Vegans and ex-vegans
One place where many passionate vegans can be short-sighted is in their attitude towards people who used to be vegan. “They were never really vegan” is almost a cliché in such situations. This mindset ignores many realities and circumstances in people’s lives. The most obvious is that sometimes people need a few attempts at making life changes, even ones they want and believe in. Perhaps people were undergoing something emotionally challenging while they were trying to become vegan, and might just need some healing and re-energising before they will be ready to try again. People’s motivations for going vegan also vary. Not everyone becomes vegan for animal rights or from a reverence for the non-human world. Some come to it for health, or because they were in a relationship or social circle that made it easy for them to be vegan. They might not see stopping being vegan as betraying the animals, because for them, it was never really about the animals in the first place. The attrition rate of vegans, especially those who aren’t motivated by ethical considerations, is high. When someone is vegan, many in the movement kind of think of that as a "tick", and if we focus on them at all, it might be about how we get them to become activists. Our movement focuses too much on getting people to become vegan and doesn’t do enough work on helping already existing vegans to be happy, healthy, socially connected and well-informed.
I've known people who went from being quite radical vegans to not being. Almost always though, they eat a lot fewer animal products than most people in society. They also are much more likely, in the initial stages at least, to choose less cruel options such as free-range eggs. They are also much more likely to adopt a vegan diet in the future than others I know. I've had people who returned to long-term veganism thank me for not ostracising them for the time when they couldn't sustain it. Social connections to vegans are perhaps the greatest predictor of people eating vegan meals and adopting veganism. Cutting our connections with people who are vegan adjacent is a bad idea if we want to help animals over the longer term.
Speaking about social connection, not all social circles are as tolerant of veganism as they should be. If someone is the only, or one of the only, vegans in their family, social circle, relationship, workplace or community, it is going to be harder for them to stay vegan than for others. We need to think about how we can help people foster a community that makes it easier for them to make ethical choices without negative social ramifications. Just being around a group of kind, committed vegans every now and then can be a balm for many people; it can help them feel less alone and different in the world.
Over promising
With health, many vegans can promote unrealistic claims for the vegan diet. Literally, people will say vegans never get sick. When I posted on social media that I was getting the COVID vaccine, an acquaintance commented that I was automatically immune to the virus because I was vegan. Some people who are vegan don't even advocate taking a regular B12 supplement or making sure to get regular calcium or omega-3-rich plant foods. Not only are these positions dangerous and empirically untrue, but promoting veganism as a miracle cure can lead to disappointment and disillusionment. The highest nutritional bodies in the world reaffirm that a well-planned vegan diet is consistent with good health at all life stages, and may bring some benefits, but the evidence for veganism as a panacea simply isn’t there. It should be enough to know, given all the environmental and animal suffering benefits, that we can live more ethically while still fulfilling our health needs, and can maybe be even healthier if we plan our diet well. Selling people a miracle cure might gain some temporary vegans, but they might also become vocal proponents against veganism when the magic fails to happen, or signs of some nutrient deficiency start to kick in. They might also leave veganism when the next fad diet comes by, because it was never about the animals. We want a movement for the long haul, and that means preferring to make long-term vegans over short-term victories.
Conclusion
The main regret of people who go vegan is that they didn't do it sooner. So if someone is thinking about getting on the vegan train, it's in their best interest to get on board as soon as possible. Of course, there are many things people should be doing: most people should also exercise more, sleep better, create less waste, ride a bicycle, meditate and practise an instrument. The fact that most people aren’t living their best lives is not always purely a moral failing, but a reflection of the fact that people have many competing priorities for their physical and mental energy. Our social circles and even our culture generally don’t always make positive change easy. As vegans, we might need to be patient and consistent with people. We should concentrate on setting a positive example, being kind, giving people space, and in all ways make clear from our words and actions that we are trying to help rather than convince or manipulate them. If you have a choice between dominating an argument or making someone feel heard and giving a positive impression of veganism, you might think about leaning towards the latter.
As much as we personally identify with veganism, it is not about us or our egos. We are speaking for the others who are voiceless, and we have a responsibility to do it effectively. Some of the most vociferous, hardline vegans I have met seemed to put more people off veganism than draw them to it. They are the sort of people who say: "All activism is good activism". Being right, coming from the moral high ground, is not enough; ego is often the main barrier between us and our connection with others. Almost any conversation about veganism is a chance for change, but sometimes the most change we can make is to plant seeds that might bear fruit later. By exhibiting a consistent compassion in our conversations, we can try to be the personal embodiment of our message. We should try to be the person the animals need us to be.