Respond to unashamedly self-righteous
Sometimes thought-provoking comments get passed over because a comments section is getting crowded or digressing or it seems difficult to jump in so you don't. One of Stephanie's Iditarod posts has become its own little spinning world, where you're waiting for the perfect time to jump in where you can also jump right off and not get stuck dealing with someone who clearly isn't going to respect dogs in a meaningful way anytime soon.
But this is about "unashamedly self-righteous," who just yesterday, wrote:
(It's on "On Veganism as Vegetarianism," near the bottom.)
At first I thought: Au contraire! It most certainly is the job/responsibility of vegans to persuade non-vegans to go vegan. It's called vegan education, and it's a vital part of being vegan.
But then I thought: Yes, it is each individual's responsibility to do the right thing and go vegan.
So it's our job to educate them, and it's their job to be open and make the right decision, no? Oui? Isn't that one way that people evolve to veganism–with the help of others who live by example and take advantage of opportunities to raise the topic? (Not to mention introduce them to spectacular food.)
How would you respond to "unashamedly self-righteous"? Am I missing something?
"So it's our job to educate them, and it's their job to be open and make the right decision, no? Oui? Isn't that one way that people evolve to veganism–with the help of others who live by example and take advantage of opportunities to raise the topic?"
I would say it's the only way (other than, perhaps, someone simply making the decision entirely on their own). My experience is that people do not react well to "persuasion" when it comes to the ethics of their diets. While I try to bring up veganism whenever I get the chance, I've found that I have to be very careful. Vegans generally – whether deserved or not – have a reputation for being smug and self-righteous. In response to this, many people simply shut down the moment they hear talk of veganism. At this point, I think continuing to argue in order to prove your position does more harm than good.
Of course, there are others (like your cheese loving friend, perhaps) who are genuinely interested or curious, in which case friendly encouragement can do more than just education.
Mary,
You said: “So it's our job to educate them, and it's their job to be open and make the right decision, no?”
Correct, and that is precisely what I meant in that comment. Education is a two-way street. Education requires a bear minimum of cooperation from the person to be educated. A sponge absorbs water very well; a piece of granite does not. Excessive self-interest tends to shut down many non-vegans’ brains, turning them into granite, and causing them to make asinine objections like, “where will all the millions of cows go if we don’t milk and slaughter them?”
People tend to think and use their life experence quite well when they can get some personal advantage in doing so, but become oddly obtuse when they perceive a personal disadvantage in thinking clearly.
Mary, as you suggest, this is clearly not an either-or situation and it seems a bit self-serving for vegans to suggest that it is not their responsibility to educate non-vegans.
With suffering so immense and exploitation so widespread there is plenty of responsibility to go around…we cannot point to the failings of others so as to lessen our moral responsibility (if anything the moral failings of others are likely to only amplify our responsibilities). I would suggest the responsibility falls on any individual who is in a position to make a difference…vegans can make a difference by educating non-vegans and non-vegans can make a difference by examining the issue in good faith and being open to making the necessary lifestyle changes (going vegan!).
My inclination is to see the demands of morality as being quite pervasive.
They sort of make a good point in that no one should go vegan simply because I want them to. It needs to be "their thing". This is why when I'm told "Don't force your beliefs on others" I respond "I force their beliefs on them". For so many, it is merely attention that needs to be drawn to the way we consume.
Ian you make a very good point that non-vegans are required to show good faith by being open to making necessary lifestyle changes. There is no harm (literally) to accept that being vegan just might be the solution to a miriad of woes. Unfortunately many use the "cruelty to vegetables" or "overpopulation of cows" as an excuse to withold due objectivity. In which case, once the conversation has hit that wall of renunciation, it is best to invest energies elsewhere… namely to those open to honest scrutinies.
I would respond by ignoring and/or blocking "unashamedly self-righteous" (USR).
USR belongs in the 10-20% of the population who is strongly opposed to veganism. They are not worth our time. We should spend our time persuading the 80% of people in the middle, who identify as moderately or fairly supportive or moderately or fairly opposed to veganism.
Once we've "moved the middle," then people like USR will be the outcasts, the freaks, the fringe… where they belong.
Sorry, I was confused. I was thinking USR was self-righteous in their animal eating, not in their veganism. My comment above is about the person to which USR responded.
I don't think vegans have a duty to do anything more than refrain from needlessly harming animals, both human and nonhuman. I don't agree that vegan education is "a vital part of being vegan." And I respect any vegan's choice to abstain from advocacy. That's not the path for everyone.
Imagine the vegan utopia. Are people doing vegan education? Or is it just a part of life where respecting animals is the norm? Do we expect average vegans in that utopia society to be able to effectively persuade the fringe anti-vegans? Or do we react to those fringe anti-vegan people who lack empathy to animals in a manner similar to how we react to the fringe anti-human people who lack empathy to humans?
Even in our goal world, there will be people who simply cannot be reasoned with. There will be criminals and insane people and greedy people and oppressive people…
However, I do think that people who consider themselves animal advocates should do vegan education. They should encourage veganism in the most effective manners possible. That means that animal advocates not only have a duty to try to "persuade non-vegans to do the right thing and go vegan," they also have a duty to learn HOW to do that by studying effective persuasion techniques.
Well said Elaine about how animal advocates have a responsibility to learn how to persuade (compassion) in people. I especially realized this 3 months ago when my AR meetup group suggested Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" on the recommended reading list. I was familiar with the book having read it several decades ago – A re-read and applying it to animal rights issues has been helpful.
Just a quick note that when I said “It is not the responsibility of vegans to persuade non-vegans to do the right thing and go vegan; it is the non-vegans' responsibility to persuade themselves to do the right thing and go vegan”, I was replying to “unashamedly vegetarian” who said “Also, I do think many self-righteous vegans, such as some of the posters above, deter would-be sympathizers with their extreme puritanical attitudes.” Context matters.
I agree with everyone that we should make -best efforts- at persuading non-vegans, but “making best efforts at persuading” is not equivalent to success at persuading. Too often, I’ve heard from people like “unashamedly vegetarian” that it is vegans’ “puritanical attitudes” or “self-righteousness” (in the pejorative sense) getting in the way of non-vegans seeing the reasons for veganism. That is almost always nonsense. The real problem is the refusal of the non-vegan to open up to what vegans are saying. In the case of “unashamedly vegetarian”, s/he simply refuses to hear what vegans are saying and shifts the blame to “self-righteous vegans” so s/he doesn’t have to accept responsibility for her or his part in dialogue. There was nothing “self-righteous” or “puritanical” in those posts that “UV” was referring to. UV is simply closed-minded.
Yes, but when those AR types treat others they call welfarists like little uniformed children, does it make them want to learn?
Sad that there are still those that forgot how they themselves became vegan and how they got there. Those that always have this master plan to create NEW vegans, but fail because just like what I've read here, they blame them for not having an open mind.
"The real problem is the refusal of the non-vegan to open up to what vegans are saying."
Really? Do you honestly believe that is the case?
There are those that want to learn. Maybe, just maybe, sometimes it's the teachers fault as well. I find most that are already vegan often forget how they got to the place they are now in. Easy or hard, every individual is different. What works for one may only piss off another.
Elaine writes:
"I don't think vegans have a duty to do anything more than refrain from needlessly harming animals, both human and nonhuman. I don't agree that vegan education is "a vital part of being vegan." And I respect any vegan's choice to abstain from advocacy. That's not the path for everyone."
and continues:
"Imagine the vegan utopia. Are people doing vegan education? Or is it just a part of life where respecting animals is the norm? Do we expect average vegans in that utopia society to be able to effectively persuade the fringe anti-vegans?"
This strikes me as a very poor way of reasoning. We cannot simply imagine what our obligations would be in a "vegan utopia" and then conclude that those are our current obligations. Simply put, if the world were different than it is now, then our obligations would be different than they are now. But it's not, so they aren't. It is asking too little of ourselves and others to only insist on what would be required in a vegan utopia. Living in a just society is naturally going to be far less demanding than living in our current society. We therefore cannot use a just society as a model of what we must be doing now.
Furthermore, there are not two groups of vegans (those that are animal advocates and those that are not) each with a distinct set of moral obligations. Rather animal advocates are simply better fulfilling the obligations that fall on all of us to intervene in the ongoing exploitation and abuse.
Joni:
I was the first and only vegan (or vegetarian) I ever knew. I went vegan because I was curious (without prompting by others) about what the lives of “food” animals were like, and when I found out, I was disgusted enough to go vegan. I stayed vegan permanently because I thought and read about the moral philosophy surrounding animal use, both pro and con, with an open mind, and the moral case is airtight that we should leave sentient nonhumans alone.
The point is that *nobody* attempted to persuade me or talked to me personally about going vegan. It was entirely on my own initiative and curiosity. I persuaded myself with no help other than the facts of what happens to nonhumans. Later, I had read and thought enough about the issue to remain vegan permanently. Had I met a vegan 5 or 10 years earlier, I very likely would have been open to what they had to say (even if they were rude), studied the issue myself, and gone vegan that much earlier.
Do I really believe: "The real problem is the refusal of the non-vegan to open up to what vegans are saying"?
Yes, I most certainly do believe that. In fact, I KNOW that. BY FAR, the most common reaction I get from people when I’m about to gently introduce them to the plight of “food” animals is “Stop, I don’t want to know.” (At which point I’m socially forced to start talking about yummy vegan food and related blogs to keep the discussion going.)
In my experience, most people think first and foremost about their preconceptions and prejudices of how veganism might affect them personally, gustatorily, and socially, and then shut down to further discussion (e.g. Stop, I don’t want to know. Ignorance is bliss.).
We may all do that at first, some of us much more than others, but the people who end up vegan decide to have the courage to find out and face the facts (instead of hiding from them) and then decide either, 1) they cannot and will not contribute any longer to the intentional violence and severe exploitation that is inherent in all animal agriculture, regardless of the perceived personal consequences, or 2) the personal consequences of going vegan are really not so bad, especially compared to living knowing that you are contributing to unnecessary violence and exploitation.