You,
reader, are one of three people reading this article. You may be the person who already knows the truth I’m laying out, and are just here for fun. Otherwise, you call yourself one of the “V” words in the article’s title, and want to know why they are the same moral stance. Do not worry, as this will all be explained as swiftly as possible. However, we must first understand what “Ethical Veganism” and “Voluntaryism” mean, so that is where we will start.
Voluntaryism:
The meaning of Voluntaryism is obvious. Removing the "ism" leaves you with the word "voluntary." It views freedom from the positive perspective, or what is necessary for freedom to exist (Everything must be voluntary). Its twin word, “Anarchy,” views freedom from a negative perspective, or what can not exist for freedom to exist (No rulers). Stealing, being a form of ruling over others, is therefore unjustified. The Non-Aggression Principle is naturally aligned with voluntaryism, as one can not rule/steal/commit involuntary acts, without aggressing upon others.
Ethical Veganism:
Simply, Ethical Veganism claims “it is unjustified to steal from another sentient being.” Whether it’s material property, life, free will, or whatever, stealing is wrong. Stealing, as always, is an involuntary act. Anyone who aggresses against another being capable of having a subjective experience (sentience) is going against Ethical Veganism, whether it is a cow, rabbit, or human. It is then, impossible to support a ruler/ruling class, while supporting Ethical Veganism. Similarly to Voluntaryism, the Non-Aggression Principle is aligned with Ethical Veganism, as one can not rule/steal/commit involuntary acts, without aggressing upon others.
Consistency:
The quickest claim someone could make immediately, is that Voluntaryism, and the Non-Aggression Principle, only apply to humans. If one makes this claim, they are not only inconsistent, but the entire idea has no ground to stand on. Principles must be objective and consistent. There is no trait present or absent in humans or other animals, that divides the two consistently on principle grounds. Aggression is aggression, and involuntary action is involuntary, regardless of what form the sentience currently has taken. Complaining about non-human animals having less intelligence, lesser ability to communicate, etc. is irrelevant. And, some humans have/can have those same traits, specifically babies may come to your mind. So, using these “justifications” must mean you don’t believe in basic human rights, and that violent, coercive, aggression against humans, which includes those ruling classes, can be justified. The entire idea that these moral stances only apply to humans is not only wrong, but the inconsistent idea literally self destructs into nihilism.
Aggression Supporting “Voluntaryists”:
Let me make it clear to any Voluntaryist who supports the governing of other animals, this article isn’t meant to attack you. I simply wish for us to untwist and free ourselves from the propaganda in our heads, and take a stance against all ruling. One simply cannot justify violence/aggression, and then turn around and claim aggression is wrong. Rejecting ethical vegan principles, is rejecting the Non-Aggression Principle. There is an extremely intelligent and moral man, who goes by the name given to him at birth, Larken Rose. I have unlimited respect for Larken, as he is the reason I left the extremely dangerous, violent, and unstable religion of statism to begin with, but as we know, many don’t just “get it” right away, as I did. They come up with terrible arguments for why slavery is justified, not because they are psychopaths, but because they were trained to believe in this horrific religion from birth. However, no matter how much I respect the man, his single attempt to deny rights to all animals, was hysterically awful. As you can guess, he used the same slavery justifying arguments he probably hears every single day, without realizing it. Fortunately for me, a Voluntaryist youtube channel known as “Esoteric Noetic,” has already discussed this very thing Larken wrote. Video here.
Statist “Vegans”:
Let me make it clear to any Vegan who supports the governing of the human animal, this article isn’t meant to attack you. I simply wish for us to untwist and free ourselves from the propaganda in our heads, and take a stance against all ruling. There is absolutely no reason why humans are not included in the animal liberation. If you want one animal to be ruled over, you have no moral argument against other animals being ruled over. You can have a vegan diet, but human governance is incompatible with basic ethical vegan principles. On the Vegan side of things, we have a popular youtube channel, known as “Ask Yourself” that is hosted by a man who is intelligent and a skilled debater. In fact, as far as I know, he is the one who came up with the "name the trait chart" in the "Consistency" section of this article. The problem is he supports humans being ruled over. Luckily for him, as far as I know, there hasn’t been a carnist smart enough to get him on this. If a carnist does mention that he supports some animals being ruled over, but not others, by calling out their shared belief in the religion of statism, his entire argument will collapse. As I said before, you can’t be against violent, coercive, aggression, while also supporting it.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, Ethical Veganism and Voluntaryism are the same moral stance. Both align with the Non-Aggression Principle, and you must be able to align with them (not hard, since they are the same) for you to align with the Non-Aggression Principle as well. Trying to support Voluntaryism while supporting governing of some animals, or trying to support Ethical Veganism while supporting governing of some animals, is a dead end. Both arguments are not principle based, not consistent, and they have no ground to stand on. So stop flopping all over the swamp, and get on that solid ground. We understand where you are, as we were there too, but it's now time to change! Abandon violence and aggression! Don’t take what isn’t yours! Don’t support those that want to take from others what isn’t theirs! Treat your neighbor like he owns himself! (And for a couple of you, just grow up for once in your life!) Freedom is inevitable.
Thank you for this great write up Tyler. I agree with the arguments you presented and appreciate this perspective.
Where I have found the complications to be within this debate is when the listener/reader is assumed to accept deontological/principle-focused ethics rather than consequentialism or value-based. Although Voluntaryists tend to gravitate toward the deontological side of the spectrum, many in the vegan community do not. Aggression is merely a "tool" with lots of grey-area as well as what's defined as "defense".
Have you experienced this philosophical struggle in conversations or debates?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Congratulations @tylerthornton! You received a personal award!
Click here to view your Board of Honor
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Congratulations @tylerthornton! You received a personal award!
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit