Could a moral vegan eat eggs from backyard chickens?

Just changed my status on Facebook to vegan, after mauling 3 eggs and cheese on a bagel.

Flagpole wrote:

If we call a person who eats eggs a vegan, then we should call a person who runs an Olympian. I mean, why be hung up on definitions?

Analogy fail for two reasons. The first is because the only truth-seeking use for an analogy is to use something familiar to explain something unfamiliar. But most people who argue use analogies in a non-truth-seeking way: to shift the ground from a losing position to a winning position. That's what you did here. The second reason you analogy fails is because even a bald-faced power play should make some token attempt at capturing the relevant features. Yours does not.

Now, if "Olympian" meant someone who is a fast runner, and "person who runs" meant someone who is even faster, then yes, maybe we should call "person who runs" an Olympian.

Typical runner or sockpuppet wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

If we call a person who eats eggs a vegan, then we should call a person who runs an Olympian. I mean, why be hung up on definitions?

Analogy fail for two reasons. The first is because the only truth-seeking use for an analogy is to use something familiar to explain something unfamiliar. But most people who argue use analogies in a non-truth-seeking way: to shift the ground from a losing position to a winning position. That's what you did here. The second reason you analogy fails is because even a bald-faced power play should make some token attempt at capturing the relevant features. Yours does not.

Now, if "Olympian" meant someone who is a fast runner, and "person who runs" meant someone who is even faster, then yes, maybe we should call "person who runs" an Olympian.

Nice.

I miss the days where people used analogies appropriately and honestly. Good to see you calling FAILURE on this abuse of analogies.

Typical runner or sockpuppet wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

If we call a person who eats eggs a vegan, then we should call a person who runs an Olympian. I mean, why be hung up on definitions?

Analogy fail for two reasons. The first is because the only truth-seeking use for an analogy is to use something familiar to explain something unfamiliar. But most people who argue use analogies in a non-truth-seeking way: to shift the ground from a losing position to a winning position. That's what you did here. The second reason you analogy fails is because even a bald-faced power play should make some token attempt at capturing the relevant features. Yours does not.

NOT a fail at all. First of all, my position is not a losing one. It is, by definition, a winning one. It's not even something where I need to convince others that my view is right. I am simply informing those on this thread who don't know what the definition of "vegan" is. I have nothing but pure truth on my side here...it's ridiculous that there are even sides.

And, the point of my comparison there is to show that words have definitions and that their meanings are defined by those definitions. The runner/Olympian came to mind, because I once heard someone refer to a friend of theirs as "an Olympian" because he ran in a marathon. People misuse words all the time, and those in this thread who believe you can eat eggs and still be a vegan are misusing the word "vegan" or, probably more accurately, they do not actually know what the word means. Vegans OFTEN become vegans due to some moral or social construct, but the morality of their decision doesn't make them vegan...their actions make them vegan. Don't perform the right actions, then not vegan.

Doubling down, eh?

Your analogy is definitely a fail, but the more interesting question is whether your overall position is a winning or losing one.

If vegan has a statutory definition of someone who does not eat animal products, then vegans can't eat backyard eggs even if that's less cruel than eating only plants.

But if vegan has an ecological definition that attempts to capture the lifestyle of people who want to minimize cruelty to animals, then the definition can and indeed should evolve when necessary.

Typical runner or sockpuppet wrote:

But if vegan has an ecological definition that attempts to capture the lifestyle of people who want to minimize cruelty to animals, then the definition can and indeed should evolve when necessary.

Yes, exactly. In fact, the original definition of veganism was that we shouldn't exploit animals, and did not make any direct reference to dietary habits.

More detail on that: the social movement called veganism started back in the 1940s or 1950s. It was originally defined by one of its leaders as follows: "The object of the Vegan Society shall be to end the exploitation of animals by man"; and "The word veganism shall mean the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals." Veganism actually explicitly defined itself as a principle, rather than as prescriptive of particular practices: "The effect of this development is to make veganism unique among movements concerned with animal welfare. For it has crystallised as a whole and not, as are all other such movements, as an abstraction. Where every other movement deals with a segment - and therefore deals directly with practices rather than with principles - veganism is itself a principle, from which certain practices logically flow." He goes on to talk about how not eating animal products is one consequence of the vegan view, among others. That is from 1951.

If one accepts this definition, from the founders of veganism (and what higher authority could there be?) then it is clear that if one judges a particular act of eating to not be harmful to animals, then it is allowed under veganism. Most of the time, eating animal products is harmful to animals because it supports systems that imprison animals under bad conditions, and ultimately kill them. But in the case of backyard chicken eggs, arguably this is not the case (assuming, say, that the chickens have good lives and are kept for reasons other than for their eggs). Thus vegans could eat backyard chicken eggs, according to these statements of the founders of veganism.

Now, I don't think we should actually accept that definition from on high. I think that we should just understand the term 'vegan' as meaning 'member of the vegan movement', in whatever form this movement actually takes today. Then if we want to better understand what that entails, we should look at the vegan movement itself and see what the members typically believe and how they act. I think that veganism should be defined not by a dictionary, and not by its founder, and not by its current leaders, but rather as all social movements are defined, namely by the communal norms of its constituent members.

What has happened is that over time many people have developed an oversimplified view of the vegan movement. People like Flagpole have decided that being vegan simply means not eating animal products. This is not totally off-base, of course, and I don't mind people using the word this way. What I do have a problem with is when people insist that it is wrong to use the word 'vegan' to mean 'member of the vegan movement', wrong to use this word as it was originally defined, wrong to use this word as vegans themselves actually use it, and only correct to use the term in the narrow, binary sense that they happen to have in mind.

Interesting.In fairness to Flagpole thought, the overwhelming majority of people will not know the history of the vegan society and will probably have first encounted veganism during school by a teacher that described it succinctly as "someone who does not eat animals or use animal products" or similar.

People like Flagpole have decided that being vegan simply means not eating animal products

That's a bit dishonest. Flagpole did not decide squat. Like most of us, someone - probably a school teacher - taught him the definition of a word and he accepted it without delving into the etymology.

though* - not "thought"

Fair enough, I definitely could have phrased that better. I certainly did not mean to blame this whole phenomenon on Flagpole, but rather just to tie things together by indicating that he is a part of this phenomenon that I'd been talking about. (Namely the phenomenon of saying that vegan can only mean what he thinks it means, it can't mean what it has meant historically (although yes he was probably unaware of this), and it can't mean that you are part of the vegan movement.)

mileage_man wrote:

Fair enough, I definitely could have phrased that better. I certainly did not mean to blame this whole phenomenon on Flagpole, but rather just to tie things together by indicating that he is a part of this phenomenon that I'd been talking about. (Namely the phenomenon of saying that vegan can only mean what he thinks it means, it can't mean what it has meant historically (although yes he was probably unaware of this), and it can't mean that you are part of the vegan movement.)

Actually I deputized Flagpole because there is more work than one person can handle. So if you are going to blame anyone, blame me.

All of us are probably guilty of one bias or another.

I shared an office for some years with a PhD chemist. One day he brought up his vegetarianism. It went something like this.

"Oh yes, I've been vegetarian for over 30 years now. I eat fish of course. And chicken on occasion. Red meat very very rarely but maybe a few times a year. But yes other than that strict vegetarian."

I'm a lover of literature and of the English language. When some f*ckwit makes it up as he goes along I have to admit it annoys me.

Flagpole wrote:

if you eat an animal or eat or use animal products, even if it is in one exceptional case, then you are no longer a Vegan.

All farm produce contains body parts of arthropods. It is not possible to filter them all out. So there are NO vegans.

And don't give me no arthropods-don't-count line. They're some of the awesomest animals there are. Just because they're small and easy to ignore doesn't make them less than a chicken or a cow.

Wtf am I reading?

Mr Elsewhere wrote:

Wtf am I reading?

You are reading that once again you have been exposed.

Why don't you just STFU and stop embarrassing yourself?

What's twisting your knickers? Go grab a quornburger and chill out.

Morally Reprehensible wrote:

As such, the answer to your question is 'No'. A non-existent being cannot do anything.

Or, Yes! A non-existent being can do anything

Bad Wigins wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

if you eat an animal or eat or use animal products, even if it is in one exceptional case, then you are no longer a Vegan.

All farm produce contains body parts of arthropods. It is not possible to filter them all out. So there are NO vegans.

And don't give me no arthropods-don't-count line. They're some of the awesomest animals there are. Just because they're small and easy to ignore doesn't make them less than a chicken or a cow.

Fine with me. I didn't create the definition of "vegan". I'm just saying that there's no way a person who eats eggs can call themselves one. If you want to expand that to how basically NO ONE can be a vegan, then I'm fine with that. We have other definitions that no one can meet:

Superhero for one.

If a vegan swallows, are they still a vegan?

I think a better question could be: "Can we talk about veganism, vegetarianism, paleo, etc. without being dicks about it?" (No, obviously.)

I was vegan for years, but now eat some backyard eggs. They are delicious and I feel no guilt about it.

When I say I was vegan, I didn't eat meat, eggs, or dairy, but I would eat honey and wear leather shoes. I've had other vegans criticize me for being a poseur. Those people are dicks.

In general conversation, I don't ever bring up my diet unless someone asks. (Typically revolving around why I don't want to eat cake at the office.) If asked, I call myself a vegetarian who doesn't eat dairy.

If I'm in a restaurant, and asking about a food item, I'll say vegan because it is easier to explain (usually).

But generally, I think it would be difficult to eat eggs and claim to be a vegan in the same way if you eat chicken and fish, you shouldn't call yourself vegetarian.