(I have argued for the importance of veganism here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00IHPBCOS/; this post is directed toward those who already accept the moral imperative of a vegan society.)

Which is the best strategy toward a vegan world/society? Meatless Mondays? Vegetarianism? Direct vegan education?

This is an old debate, of course, but it is important, so I thought it would be worth raising the question here among intelligent and open-minded ethicists. Maybe we can make each other wiser.

I myself am strongly inclined toward the "telling it as it is" approach. To my mind there is a self-contradiction inherent in the accommodationist approach (meatless Mondays, reducing meat etc.) -- trying to convey something of great moral importance in a way that fails to convey moral importance (as meatless Mondays and kind encouragements to "go veg" admittedly do) in my view fails to convey, well, moral importance. And when we fail to convey that, I think we fail to drive any significant behavioral change. I think it is an approach that is detached from the reality of our moral cognition. To make an analogy that hits the bulls eye of our (in practice behavior driving) moral intuitions: we would never advocate for less pedophilia, or pedophilia free Mondays. (Gary Francione, whom I think is too often dismissed by utilitarians, frequently draws the same analogy). There are of course relevant differences, but there is a crucial point here: being accommodationist and not speaking up fails to convey moral seriousness and fails to really ignite our social, moral emotions that guide our behavior; speaking up, honestly and furiously, does not. Furthermore, the accommodationist approach also fails to fundamentally question speciesism, and that is the root of the problem, and also something that is relevant for us who think wild animals matter; we cannot avoid confusing people if we encourage people to not eat meat on mondays, and in the next breath suggest that it is really bad when the lion eats the zebra. To be honest, I think this makes us appear insane to people (hardly the best tactic in terms of PR).

To phrase it simply, I think this is where utilitarians need to see that the deontological approach (a categorical rejection of the killing of animals for frivolous purposes, and persistent clarity about this) is the utilitarian one. (This is not far from the argument I try to make in my essay on "happy" meat: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/435640). See also this piece by Wayne Hsiung for a case for bluntness: http://veganpublishers.com/wayne-hsiung ... ext-stage/

Strangely, this direct approach is largely dismissed, both by most animal groups and most vegans (or so it seems), and I think there may well be an unrecognized bias at work here (one that is rationalized eagerly): we would like to live in a world where we just kindly tell people to eat less of this and less of that, and then, eventually, through the power of all our kindness and more and more vegan options, everyone will go vegan. At least, I would love to live in that world, and I would love if a simple, kind and digestible phrase could reliably put people on the straight path toward veganism, because I am good at being kind, and very bad at the opposite. But I must admit that I consider this wish of mine to be no more than that, and, even if it could work, I am certain it is far from the most effective approach. We have to be honest, and we have to shatter people's worldview that non-human animals do not matter.

So, in sum, I think this accommodationist school of thought gets human psychology all wrong, in spite of its claiming to have much empirical evidence backing it. (The evidence I have seen is, to say the least, unconvincing -- to say that the efficacy of gradual persuasion in psychology experiments about matters that have nothing to do with veganism, and which happen in a completely different social and societal context, should imply that we should advocate for less than veganism and be less than blunt and direct is an extraordinary claim based on quite a few leaps of faith, and to go out and assert strong conclusions like that based on such research strikes me as dishonest). And I think it has catastrophic consequences in terms of our practice.

I could keep on writing about this, but I think enough has been put on the table to ignite a discussion.

A small, but important addition: It is also worth noting that what is the optimal approach also depends upon what our final goal is. If a vegan world is our final goal (which it is for many animal groups and people -- not us, I would think), then we might be happy with a lot of vegan options that turns the world away from all animal products, gradually and merrily, but if we want a world that is vegan and which really cares about animals in the wild too -- what we *should* want -- then the strategy required is a deeper one: it must question speciesism. And I would say that this straight-up let-me-shatter-your-worldview-and-make-you-understand-that-non-human-animals-really-matter approach is the best one. And, again, I would say that even if our goal were "merely" a vegan world; this broader goal just makes an even clearer case for the direct, anti-speciesist approach, and should make those of us who care about animal suffering everywhere favor that approach even more. Or so I believe.

Some good thoughts from Brian on the subject: http://reducing-suffering.org/my-person ... -activism/
My thoughts in reaction to this piece: Activism in public can indeed often be sensationalist and for the sake of the protesters' feelings of having done something. There almost seems to be a link between how radical activism is and how much good people feel they have done, and those feelings are obviously not reliable. As with many other things, gut feeling is often driving people more than reason here. That being said, I do think being very passionate in terms of expression has its place. And I do think we need to be more radical than most of us inuitively feel we should be and would like to be. But yeah, there are many open questions as to what really makes sense to do and how to engage, but spreading good arguments does seem a sure winner, so we can all be on that team. Related to that, I'm a big fan of digital activism, one reason being that one can spend one day to write something, and then it is available for all time, and thousands of people can read it over time, whereas being on the street in a demonstration does not have the same effect of a lasting product that keeps on giving returns. But both things certainly have an important role to play.

Thanks for the comments!

MVinding wrote:There almost seems to be a link between how radical activism is and how much good people feel they have done

Keeping in mind that I don't typically support environmentalism, I like this quote:

A long–time environmental activist was speaking to an enthusiastic group of young environmentalists at a rally. He warned of the precarious situation the environment was in, the toll that corporate greed had taken on forests and the dire consequences that lay ahead if serious changes were not made. He then shouted out to the crowd,

“Are you ready to get out there and fight for the environment?” To which they answered an enthusiastic,

“Yeah!!”

“Are you ready to get arrested and go to jail for the environment?”

“Yeah!”

“Are you ready to give your life for the environment?”

“Yeah!!”

“Are you willing to cut your hair and put on a suit for the environment?”

The crowd fell silent…

MVinding wrote:one can spend one day to write something, and then it is available for all time, and thousands of people can read it over time, whereas being on the street in a demonstration does not have the same effect of a lasting product that keeps on giving returns.

Good point. That said, I'd guess that a main impact of street protests comes from the news coverage and other subsequent longer-lasting discussion that it provokes.