Vegan. Practically.

That’s the name of a relatively new blog produced, hosted, and authored by philosopher Tracy Isaacs. The blog is designed to work through some philosophical, political, social, and economic concerns and interests with respect to veganism, its justifications, and its requirements, as well as offer advice about how to accomplish them, including cooking guidance and menus. As a disabled philosopher who has been a vegan (yes, there are important philosophical connections to be made with respect to ableism, animal cruelty, specieism, and veganism) for close to 15 years, this blog is an endeavour that I want to support and promote.

Here is how Isaacs describes the Vegan. Practically. blog on its “About” Page:

“My name is Tracy Isaacs. I am a philosopher, author, and practicing vegan. I offer this blog as an invitation to all who are curious, considering, or already committed to a vegan lifestyle for ethical reasons. Here you will find philosophical, practical, and strategic reflections on veganism as an ethical practice.

I have been vegan since 2011, but as I say in my welcome post, I am not always perfect. I think there are really compelling ethical and environmental reasons to adopt a vegan lifestyle, not just with respect to food choices, but also more generally. And at the same time I recognize that even people who feel the weight of ethical and environmental reasons struggle with the prospect of becoming vegan.

There is no question that it’s a challenging undertaking in an omnivorous world where non-human animals are considered fair game for human use. This sense of entitlement, we might even think of it as a sense of humans’ “dominion” over non-human animals, functions as an unquestioned ideology, mostly unnoticed because it’s so normal.

From both a harm perspective (vast animal suffering in industrial agriculture, not just limited to non-human animals) and from a sustainability/environmental perspective, it’s almost incredible that it goes mostly unquestioned. But such is the world we live in.

Some years back, I started to wonder whether strategically, for the good of the non-human animals and the planet, there might be a way to offer veganism as an approachable undertaking that recognizes that even if it is supported by compelling reasons, it’s a big ask.

I started Vegan. Practically. as a companion project to a book I’m writing (working title: The Imperfect Vegan: Ethical Eating as a Practice). The blog will be a place for me to explore possible book material in no particular order. So you’ll find information (such as my post about vegan cheese) interspersed with philosophical reflections and reflections on my experiences “out in the field” (i.e. life as a vegan). I’m an academic, and sometimes I’ll be putting on my “ethics professor” hat. But I’m not really planning to teach or preach. I can’t promise that I’ll never rant.

And though I do think the subject matter is of great consequence, we don’t have to be joyless and we don’t have to be mean. I’m happy to have you with me and I hope you find something useful here — something to chew on that doesn’t taste like cardboard.

In one of the most provocative posts to date, “Some Reflections on Fish and Other Seafood,” Isaacs critically addresses (among other things) claims according to which fish and seafood do not feel pain and suffer. Here is an excerpt from the post:

A lot of people ease their way into vegetarianism or veganism through pescatarianism. Pescatarians avoid meat and poultry products, but they still consume and enjoy fish and seafood.Mostly, the choice to be pescatarian stems from two different sets of motivations. The first is the perception that fish and seafood are healthier than other animal products and offer great sources of protein. The second is that fish and other sea animals are “lower” life forms than mammals and birds, making them less subject to moral concern. Further related to the sense that we have less reason to be morally concerned about fish and seafood is the perception (which is often a misperception) that compared to farmed animals, they live their lives swimming around the lakes and oceans in their natural habitats right up to the moment they are caught, so their lives are on balance pretty good, just the sorts of lives they would be living anyway. Besides this, they are different enough from us that many assume they don’t suffer as much or in the same way as other animals that humans eat.

This week, Veganuary is focusing on their “choose fish-free” campaign, which I discovered after receiving an invitation late last week to participate in their survey about my experiences eating fish. As I said, I used to eat fish sometimes, though not enough that I called myself a “pescatarian” (I don’t know that it comes in degrees, but back then I considered myself rather to be “imperfect vegetarian”). When I became vegan in 2011 I gave up fish, having eaten it only once since then, towards the end of a trip to Tanzania in November that same year, when the context made me feel that insisting that my food restrictions be met started to feel precious and privileged (this might be a post for another day). Now I can’t even contemplate eating seafood of any kind.

The Veganuary resource page for their Choose Fish-Free campaign is really good. In general, the Veganuary site has great information offered in a direct way, presenting the facts to speak for themselves. For example, in their piece “The Problem with Fishing and Fish Farming,” they offer this description of what happens when fish are caught in the net of a commercial fishery:

Netting can capture tens of thousands of fish at one time, with animals becoming exhausted as they desperately try to outswim the net. When the nets are pulled to the surface, those at the bottom are crushed by the weight of fish above them. The rapid change in pressure causes their swim bladders to overinflate, and their stomachs and intestines to be pushed out through their mouths and anuses. Their eyes distort, bulge and can also be pushed out of their sockets. The animals are then dropped onto the ship’s deck where those who are still alive will suffocate – a process that can take several minutes. Others, like tuna, are hoisted from the water with a hook, and killed by forcing a spike through their brains. Despite an ever-increasing number of studies that show aquatic species can feel pain, there are no still welfare laws governing the slaughter of fish at sea.

Read/listen to the entire “Some Reflections on Fish and Other Seafood” post on Vegan. Practically. here.

Read/listen to the entire “About” page of Vegan. Practically. here.

Find the archive of posts on Vegan. Practically. here.

5 Responses

  1. Thanks for sharing this, Shelley, and Tracy for writing it! I especially like the post on the sensory worlds of nonhuman animals. One of the problems that most worries me about animal rights campaigns is a sort of “welfarism for thee, but not for me” approach to what makes a nonhuman animal’s life go well. On this view, it is presupposed that humans (and only some humans, at that—there is of course a natural connection to ableism here) are uniquely capable of self-realization. Animals, we’re meant to think, aren’t. They can experience pleasure and pain and that’s it. For them to achieve flourishing consists in their attaining pleasure and not experiencing pain. There are no higher-level interests, no possibility of community or inter-individual relationships. Thus the extent of our ethical obligations toward animals is to keep them *placated*. Hence I think your claim that “our ability to broaden our awareness beyond the human experience, even if only to understand and appreciate that other beings have their own lives and experiences too, is a nudge in the direction of respecting their status as inhabitants of this planet in their own right” is important and timely.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Tracy Isaacs's avatar Tracy Isaacs

      Thanks for this, Virgil. I appreciate your positive feedback and am happy to hear you enjoyed the post about the truly incredible sensory worlds of nonhuman animals. I like what you’ve said about how species-specific the human idea of flourishing is, as if other animals’ flourishing is fully captured in their experiences of pain-pleasure. [which seems not to move most people in any case, but maybe if more people appreciated that animals’ have a much fuller range of experience than physical pain/pleasure they’d care more]

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.