I’m a purist but I appreciate everyone doing their best. Everyone has different challenges and priorities and in the end a bacontarian is much better than eating meat all the time, according to me at least.
For me, I’d love to see the monoculture farms go away. Reduced meat eating would go a long way to that end.
It doesn’t require completely abstaining but even a 10% reduction in the need for feed and other processed items would free up land that could be used in more sustainable ways.
To that end, I’m also a fan of alternative farming methods such as vertical farms and promoting even small balcony boxes that may only produce pretty flowers or herbs.
Every variety of greenery in as many places as possible would combat the poison we’ve pumped into the world over the past few centuries.
You are accepting that others aren’t and thus okay with harm reduction stances (“lesser evil is better than greater evil”), so you are not a moral purist at least, if that makes any sense. For a true moral purist evil is unacceptable so they will refuse making that choice, even if that leads to a worse outcome
Veganism is by it’s very definition harm reduction. There’s a large difference between “cannot eat less meat” and “don’t want to eat less meat”. The first is technically even vegan, the second will never be.
Applying strict moral purism to veganism means leaving most of harm reduction out, though, it’s the paradox that happens when moral purism meets lesser-evilism. If the options are getting lots of people to eat less meat by understanding changing cultural norms takes a lot of time and will happen slowly and thus encouraging them to take at least smaller steps towards leaving animal products out (more animals saved = lesser evil), or demanding everyone immediately stops eating meat and becomes vegan, which fails to consider people grown in a meat eating culture will fight aggressively against sudden changes and thus makes people less likely to listen and reduce their meat consumption (more animals eaten = greater evil), a moral purist vegan will choose the latter or do neither (leading to animals still being eaten more than with the first option - so not a harm reduction stance).
As moral purists views it is completely unacceptable to eat animals, encouraging people to eat just a little animals is not an option. If you can accept the lesser evil, you are not a moral purist, and if you don’t accept the lesser evil then you’re choosing against harm reduction
The purists will hate you, and those that hate the purists will also hate you.
I’m a purist but I appreciate everyone doing their best. Everyone has different challenges and priorities and in the end a bacontarian is much better than eating meat all the time, according to me at least.
For me, I’d love to see the monoculture farms go away. Reduced meat eating would go a long way to that end.
It doesn’t require completely abstaining but even a 10% reduction in the need for feed and other processed items would free up land that could be used in more sustainable ways.
To that end, I’m also a fan of alternative farming methods such as vertical farms and promoting even small balcony boxes that may only produce pretty flowers or herbs.
Every variety of greenery in as many places as possible would combat the poison we’ve pumped into the world over the past few centuries.
You are accepting that others aren’t and thus okay with harm reduction stances (“lesser evil is better than greater evil”), so you are not a moral purist at least, if that makes any sense. For a true moral purist evil is unacceptable so they will refuse making that choice, even if that leads to a worse outcome
Veganism is by it’s very definition harm reduction. There’s a large difference between “cannot eat less meat” and “don’t want to eat less meat”. The first is technically even vegan, the second will never be.
Applying strict moral purism to veganism means leaving most of harm reduction out, though, it’s the paradox that happens when moral purism meets lesser-evilism. If the options are getting lots of people to eat less meat by understanding changing cultural norms takes a lot of time and will happen slowly and thus encouraging them to take at least smaller steps towards leaving animal products out (more animals saved = lesser evil), or demanding everyone immediately stops eating meat and becomes vegan, which fails to consider people grown in a meat eating culture will fight aggressively against sudden changes and thus makes people less likely to listen and reduce their meat consumption (more animals eaten = greater evil), a moral purist vegan will choose the latter or do neither (leading to animals still being eaten more than with the first option - so not a harm reduction stance).
As moral purists views it is completely unacceptable to eat animals, encouraging people to eat just a little animals is not an option. If you can accept the lesser evil, you are not a moral purist, and if you don’t accept the lesser evil then you’re choosing against harm reduction
Ah, I guess I’m more of a dietary purist.