Veganism is commonly misunderstood as a diet or way of eating. In reality, it is a movement that opposes the exploitation and unnecessary harm caused to non-human animals. Therefore, veganism opposes human consumption patterns which negatively impact animals, including in our food, cosmetics, clothing, and entertainment practices. Just as veganism, and the practical consequences of these beliefs, are necessarily tied to a belief in animal liberation, a belief in animal liberation is reliant on normative ethical theories. These normative theories themselves are reliant on meta-ethical beliefs. The belief in animal liberation is the lowest common denominator that all vegans share. Yet rather than coming together to advance the political objective of animal liberation, vegans spend far too much time arguing about philosophical nuances which are irrelevant to the cause.

Having a set of coherent ethical beliefs is important. This allows an individual to make sense of the world around them and to use moral principles to guide their actions. The formation of normative theories helps to steer public discussion and change opinions over time, even when public policies are limited to the beliefs of a democratic society. Discussing these underlying principles is important for philosophical advancement, but social justice implementation must take precedence.

Within democratic societies, bills rarely pass with anything more than a slim majority. Now imagine if lawmakers not only had to agree on passing a bill but also the reason for passing a bill. Within this society, no legislation would pass because opinions would be far too fractured and divided. This would be catastrophic for social movements which would fail to ever gain enough support from individuals with homogeneous arguments.

Multiple real political examples highlight this. For example, if a legislative body narrowly codified homosexual marriage and other LGBT+ rights into law there would be multiple reasons for doing so. Some legislators will have little opinion and will vote along party lines or what they believe their constituents will be most favourable to, some might be utilitarian liberals who believe that the state has no right to meddle in private affairs regardless of their personal opinion on LGBT+ rights, others might be swayed by Aristotelean virtue ethics and others by variants of Christian situation ethics. Does the homosexual benefit more from a legislative body with the ‘correct’ philosophy but the inability to pass extensions of rights or a legislative body that protects their interests but for varied reasons? Clearly, the second option is the most favourable even if unaligned philosophies cause a certain degree of mental anguish.

The same logic can be applied to the liberation of non-human animals which likewise must be viewed from the oppressed’s perspective. Non-human animals do not care why their pain and suffering cease to exist, only that they do. By extension, the reason that one is vegan does not matter to non-human animals, only that one is vegan. Non-human animals are also fortunate to not be able to engage in philosophical reasoning. Time spent arguing about philosophical differences within the vegan community is reflective of a failure to prioritise the victims that all vegans aim to protect.

The implications for activists are clear. Vegans must argue for veganism itself, rather than for veganism backed by a particular normative or meta-ethical theory. In the vast majority of cases, it is much more effective to convince individuals that their existing ethical beliefs point to veganism rather than attempting to convince them to first change their philosophical beliefs. Vegans must therefore be well versed in different schools of thought and use arguments which can be adopted by individuals regardless of their worldview.

Vegans should also recognise that ethical arguments are only effective against others who have (or believe that they have) a strong background in ethical thought. Most people are cognitively dissonant and take action before creating a perspective which justified the actions. Therefore, vegans should aim to change action not only when it is backed in (the ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect’) philosophy, but also when there is a lack of philosophy. Seemingly benign actions such as offering to take work colleagues to a vegan restaurant or making vegan products the default option thus requiring individuals to opt out of veganism rather than to opt into veganism should be seen as activism too.

To advance animal liberation, vegans must use all tools at their disposal. This includes arguing beyond one’s own ethical beliefs to convince others to participate in veganism, knowingly or otherwise. Vegans must come together around the lowest common denominator and create a society where veganism is the norm and non-veganism is seen as an active choice to be speciesist. Although framing veganism as a political movement rather than a philosophical movement can be challenging, this is something that is necessary to most effectively end the systematic breeding, exploitation, torture and killing of animals.