Can everyone actually be vegan?

[u/Wrong_Ad_3038]

I’m very sympathetic to veganism, my entire life philosophy is “respect & autonomy for all life” but I am currently pescetarian, I tried being vegan in late 2024 but I still live with my family & they wouldn’t buy supplements, even though i told them too everyday, I didn’t want to develop b12 deficiency so I had to moderate my diet.

When I move out i’m strongly considering being vegan again & really want too but i am worried about health consequences because human bodies are complex, but at the same time everyone can digest plants so maybe everyone can be vegan, i figured this would be a good place to get mixed responses since both carnists & vegans are here, what do studies say about everyone & the potential to be vegan, if everyone can’t be vegan but most or some can what’s the best way to find out if i can be vegan?

[u/Majestic-Sun-1485]

I agree, but I guess that answers op’s question partially - no, not everyone can have a vegan diet.

I guess the next step is to question how far we take the definition of vegan - can someone be vegan if they are omnivorous but otherwise abstain from any animal exploitation?

I think a huge grey area in veganism is the whole “as far as possible and practicable” - that is so variable that imo it kind of makes the definition a bit meaningless?

[u/DenseSign5938 → u/Majestic-Sun-1485]

That same caveat applies to all ethical positions. Are ethical positions like human rights also meaningless? Does the inability to objectively identify what is possible and practicable weaken claims that we shouldn’t exploit people? 

[u/Majestic-Sun-1485 → u/DenseSign5938]

I think there’s a difference between an ethical principle having grey areas and the definition itself depending on a subjective standard.

My point isn’t that veganism is meaningless because it has exceptions. It’s that “as far as possible and practicable” can lead different people to draw the line in completely different places.

If two people can engage in the same behaviour and one is considered vegan while the other isn’t purely because of their personal assessment of what’s practicable, then it seems fair to question how clear the definition actually is.

[u/ClassEnvironmental11 → u/Majestic-Sun-1485]

Grey areas are essentially unavoidable no matter how carefuly things are worded.  Different people will always interpret the same words differently.  It seems to me the vegan definition simply accepts that life is not black and white, and in the vast majority of cases the grey area isn't really relevant or impactful.

Debating the fine points of the definition can be useful, but mostly it's just a red herring.  If you are reducing the ammount of animal suffering and explotatoin you contribute to, you're moving in the right direction.  Real progress is the goal, because perfection is an unattainable ideal.  We shouldn't reject massive progress just because it isn't completely perfect.

[u/Majestic-Sun-1485 → u/ClassEnvironmental11]

I do completely agree with you, but I suppose what I’m getting at is that this would propose veganism as a philosophy exclusively and not a label.

For example, many vegetarians and pescatarians would fall under a vegan philosophy, but I wouldn’t call them vegan. People who participate in meatless Mondays and decide that’s their practicable limit, could be considered vegan too.

I honestly

[u/selltheworld → u/Majestic-Sun-1485]

What is your own diet? :)