I dont see it here, so figured someone’s gotta post it. Here is the definition of veganism as made by the vegan society circa 1944:
“Veganism 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.”
It’s vague because veganism is an entire moral philosophy. The so-called definition does not capture everything that veganism is, and the area you object to is left intentionally ambiguous in the definition because of the nuance involved.
Why should moral philosophies be vague? I think the problem is that this definition has one foot in one moral framework (deontology) and one in another (utilitarianism).
My application is not at all vague. Is yours?
I did not say the philosophy is vague. I mean that the definition only loosely approximates the actual philosophy because it must be expressed very briefly, and so it is necessarily going to contain vagaries.
Sure, I guess a perfect definition without any ambiguity is impossible. Ultimately I don’t think vagueness is the main problem, but the implied inclusion of a utilitarian moral framework is, like I tried to explain here.
I think it should be something like 'the respecting of animal rights and the rejection of animal exploitation and speciesism '. Of course that also raises questions, but at least it would be rights based.