If, for example, the vegan principle is applied to diet, it can at once be seen why it must be vegetarian in the strictest sense and why it cannot contain any foods derived from animals. One may become a vegetarian for a variety of reasons - humanitarian, health, or mere preference for such a diet; The principle is a matter of personal feeling, and varies accordingly. Veganism, however, is a principle - that man has no right to exploit the creatures for his own ends - and no variation occurs. Vegan diet is therefore derived entirely from "fruits, nuts, vegetables, grains and other wholesome non-animal products," and excludes "flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey and animal milk and its derivatives.''
I'm quoting it here in a new topic because I think it makes an important distinction between the diet of vegetarianism and the philosophy of veganism. Unfortunately, veganism is too often used as a synonym for vegetarianism without egg or dairy. This belittles veganism because it reduces the vegan philosophy to a practice that is merely an extension of the principle of non-exploitation.
Another article on the difference between veganism and vegetarianism is Jo Stepaniak's essay "The Name Game: Coming to Terms." I recommend going to the link and reading the full essay, but here are a few excerpts:
The word "vegetarian" has always dealt solely with what a person eats; it has never delved into the reasoning behind a person's decision to practice a meat-free diet and therefore does not address motivation. Consequently, vegetarians embrace a wide range of perspectives and rationales. ...
Unlike vegetarianism, veganism has always had a specific, unifying philosophy associated with it, and, in addition, has always dealt with much more than what one eats. ... The Vegan Society was the first organized secular group to promote a compassionate lifestyle. Their definition of "veganism," which is accepted as the decisive standard worldwide, is as follows:Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly or in part from animals.
In its Articles of Association, the legal documents of the Society, a slightly different version is presented:Veganism denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and practical - 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 humans, animals, and the environment.
Both interpretations begin by stating that veganism is a "way of life," and "a philosophy." Neither emphasizes diet over other aspects of compassionate living, because in vegan practice no one area is more significant than another; all are expected to be implemented simultaneously. ...
The purpose and parameters of veganism are clearly outlined in these definitions. They offer a distinct contrast to vegetarianism, which is concerned strictly with diet, and even then asserts that certain foods may be left up to personal choice. On the other hand, the explanation of veganism leaves virtually no room for individual interpretation. Although it recognizes the impossibility of perfect implementation of its tenets, it provides unequivocal guidelines for not only food choices but all other aspects of living. Furthermore, it presents a reasoned doctrine that clarifies the specific rationale that underscores the choice to be vegan. Such a coalescence of consciousness is something that isn't included in vegetarianism. Yet it has, from its inception, been an integral and pivotal aspect of being vegan.
...
The neologism "dietary vegan" has been used to describe "total vegetarians" - people who avoid all animal products in diet only. This term is problematic because it distorts the meaning of "vegan" by narrowing it down to issues related solely to food. Veganism is not about food; it is about reverence for life. By minimizing it's substance, we diminish the word's value. With this fandangle term, "vegan" loses its defining characteristics and ultimately becomes meaningless. What, then, differentiates "dietary vegan" from "total vegetarian" or "total vegetarian" from "vegetarian"? Suddenly we have a confusing, oxymoronic set of useless vocabulary that confounds all who hear it. Not surprisingly, the misinformed masses emerge, vigorously defending the language they believe is accurate and fitting.
This distinction between veganism and vegetarianism is meant to clarify their meanings, and it shouldn't be taken to mean the two are opposed to each other. After all, vegans are practicing vegetarians in the strictest sense, and vegetarianism is often a starting point for many future vegans. The founders of veganism always promoted close cooperation with vegetarian groups and individuals. But, like Stepaniak wrote about "dietary vegan," placing a vegan forum under "diets" is minimizing. As a practical philosophy of life veganism would better fit under the "Activists" listing.
