Theoria

Brian Leiter’s inability to contain his desire to rank everything in existence has found a new front: attitudes of law professors towards veganism! As with all his polls, I strongly advise not participating as it lends legitimacy to his silly enterprise. Worth looking at, however. What is interesting about this particular “poll” is that with his others, he does his best to limit it to “experts” (however defined). Thus, if he deems a particular person to “know nothing about philosophy,” then they shouldn’t participate in a poll about, say, early modern philosophy even if they work on the history of early modern thought (i.e., entailing a great deal of knowledge about the period and its thinkers — in many cases, more than actual philosophers). This “poll,” however, does not demand that respondents have any familiarity with animal ethics — or even ethics in general or, for that matter, animals. Leiter seems to be unaware of what veganism entails, pointing only to dietary decisions: vegans are “those whose dietary regimen excludes all animal products (so, e.g., all dairy products)” (emphasis added). Consequently, as presented by Leiter, the only difference between being vegetarian and being vegan is that one doesn’t consume dairy while the other does. This is not the case. (To his credit, he provides an external link. However, the content of the external like — i.e., the meaning of “vegan” — is not accurately reflected in his post. The content of the link itself is questionable stating that veganism is a “natural extension of vegetarianism.” It is not.) Veganism is not limited to food, but includes all relations with animals. A vegan avoids products tested on animals insofar as it is possible (nearly impossible, of course), does not support zoos, circuses, rodeos, races and “roadside attractions,” reads ingredient labels on all products, does not hunt or fish, does not wear or use leather, fur, or wool, and the like.

The decision to adopt a vegan lifestyle is an ethical decision, both in the modern and ancient senses of the term. In the modern sense, it involves the application of general, abstract rules taken to be right (e.g., utilitarian calculus, deontological, etc) to a particular phenonenom, in this case, the consumption of animals. In the ancient sense, it involves a radical and conscious transformation of the self in relation to the self, what Michel Foucault calls “the government of self and others.” (A vegetarian diet could qualify as ethical in the ancient sense, but not the modern sense.)

Now, if only I could get more than greasy hummus and stale pita at post-event receptions.

Addition: Gary Francione’s first “Abolitionist Approach Commentary” (a new “podcast”) makes a similar argument to the one I outlined above about the relation between vegetarianism and veganism.