Is a vegan morally obligated to speak out on behalf of the animals?
Given one is vegan for the animals, should a vegan not seek to create more vegans when the opportunity arises? This would help more animals, which is that not the purpose of veganism?
For the purpose of this essay, we will limit ourselves to low-hanging, easy opportunities. I'm not suggesting vegans are to join an animal rights group and take to the streets. For example, I regularly get into conversations at work about being vegan. Since someone has started the conversation out of curiosity about my veganism then it is easy for me to reply in such a way that would encourage them to be vegan or at least consider animal ethics.
Our question on vegan moral obligation breaks down into two questions: 1) What does it mean to be vegan and 2) what does it mean to be morally obligated to do something?
1) What does it mean to be vegan? Most (at least online) use the Vegan Society's definition of veganism which is "A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms, it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals." [1]
This definition lays out the guidelines but gives no indication of why a vegan would be vegan. Reasons often include improving one's health, environmental concerns, and concerns for the treatment of animals. I am going to argue vegans for their health and vegans for the environment do not exist. Only vegans for the animals exist.
Buying leather, make-up test on animals, down-feathered pillows, wool socks, and a variety of other non-consumable products do not affect one's health, therefore should be no concern for a health-conscious vegan. However, that contradicts the definition of veganism since one is to avoid all animal products, not only animal-based food. Vegans that are vegan solely for their health cannot exist and are on a diet called plant-based. Health might be a major component of why one is vegan, but cannot be the sole reason for being vegan since they must be concerned with animal-based or animal-tested products that do not affect health.
The argument for environmental vegans not existing is similar to the argument for why health-based vegans do not exist. Most vivisection is not detrimental to the environment. For example, the tests done on mice have no major impact on the environment. An environmental vegan does not care about the mice, which means they are not vegan by definition. The environment might be a major component as to why one is vegan, but to be vegan means there must be a concern for the mice in labs outside of concern for the environment.
This means one can only be vegan for the animals. To be vegan for the animals means one is concerned about the well-being and treatment of animals, which is why one avoids the use and exploitation of animals and animal-derived products. Our main question becomes if a vegan is concerned about the animals, is being vegan enough? Should the vegan be morally obligated to speak out for the animals since speaking out has the potential to help more animals the vegan is concerned about?
2) What does it mean to be morally obligated? If one is vegan for the animals, is that not enough? I believe in many social and economic causes, but I am obligated to speak out for those as well? Why would veganism be special?
Another word for moral obligation is moral duty. If one believes in morals and that one should act morally then we can say one has a duty to their morals. "Being moral" is similar to saying "it is my duty to be moral". For example, if one thinks it is moral to be vegan then it is one's moral duty to be vegan.
To be morally obligated to speak out on behalf of the animals means that one thinks that it is moral to speak on behalf of the animals. And to not speak out would be immoral.
Why then is it our duty to speak for the animals but not other social justice causes? The issue comes down to scale and neglect in this area. Speaking out is low effort for potentially high impact. Whereas other causes (climate change, LGBTQ+, anti-war, etc.) all have considerably more resources allocated to them. As someone that has made the conscious decision to be vegan in face of the normalization of the exploitation of animals, the gravity of the plight of animals hangs over us daily. Over 70 billion land animals are slaughtered by humans for humans every year, and this does not include sea life (where the number of individuals impacted is so large they are counted in weight) and animals are driven out by other human activity such as new construction developments or climate change [2].
These numbers (to put it lightly) are staggering. As people concerned for animals, taking low-hanging opportunities to talk to others about the plight of animals is absolutely negligible compared to the suffering we impose on non-human animals. That is, if we are concerned for the animals, it as our moral duty to influence others in order to help more animals given the sheer volume of abuse and overall neglect by society on this issue. An individual being vegan allows that individual to be absolved of immoral behavior towards animals, but we need a vegan society to end the exploitation and harm caused to non-human animals by the hands of humans.
The intention of this essay is not to cast blame or judgment on vegans saying they are acting immorally. Being perfectly moral regardless of which ethical framework one subscribes to is impossible. However, if it is our duty to be moral then we must strive to be as moral as possible. And in this case, that means speaking out for the non-human animals that cannot.
[1] https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism