Home / N. Ex-vegans: why I gave up / Part IND
"I stopped being vegan because I'm at a different stage of life"
stages of life change what is easy, but they don't change what happens to animals. A stage with less time, more stress or other priorities is a good reason to ask for practical help, simplify the menu or do whatever is possible, not to treat a moral question as if it were a passing fad. No other moral commitment expires because a person has entered a new stage.
Short answer
It makes sense that your life has changed, and that things are harder now. But the animals are in the same situation as before. If this stage has less time or more pressure, you can simplify: fewer recipes, more ready-made vegan food, and doing whatever is possible. A hard stage calls for adjustments, not for the question to stop mattering.
For children
When we grow up, our tastes change: toys, music, clothes. But some things don't change with age, like not hurting others. Animals still feel pain and fear, whatever stage of life we're in.
"What changed: what happens to the animals, or what's easy for you right now?"
Como pode aparecer
"I'm at a different stage now."
"It was a phase."
"Now, with a small child and work, it's not doable."
"I grew up and stopped being radical."
"It's hard; I don't have time." (which is J9)
"It's my personal choice; don't impose your morals." (which is E1)
The strongest version
"I was vegan at one point in my life. Now I'm at a different stage; I have other priorities."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1A person's priorities and availability change over the course of life.
- P2It's reasonable to adjust personal choices to the priorities and availability of each stage.
- P3Veganism is a personal choice, like any other.
- CSo it's reasonable to leave veganism when entering a new stage.
P1 is true. P2 holds for personal tastes and projects. The problem lies in P3: veganism is about what is done to others, not a personal taste. Choices that affect third parties don't expire with the stages of life.
The argument is valid, but not sound: P3 treats a moral question as a preference.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument mixes up two things that change in different ways:
What changes with the stage of life What doesn't change Time, money, energy What happens to the animals Routine, family, work The reasons that led the person to veganism What is easy or hard What is right or wrong - b
Where the argument breaks
1. Stages change tastes, not duties.
No one would say they stopped paying child support, being honest or not mistreating their dog because they entered a new stage. When a choice affects third parties, a change of stage can change how it's carried out, but it doesn't cancel it.
2. A hard stage calls for practical help.
With less time, there are shortcuts: frozen food, packed meals, simple menus with rice, beans and vegetables. Real difficulty is a good reason to simplify, not to give up on everything.
3. "It was a phase" treats the reasons as a fad.
If the person became vegan because of the animals, the reasons are still the same. What changed was the willingness to act on them, and that deserves to be said honestly (E12).
4. The most common cause is lack of support, not a change of values.
In the Faunalytics survey, 63% of former vegetarians and vegans didn't like standing out from others, and 58% didn't see the diet as part of their identity. This suggests that many people give up because of social pressure and lack of a network, not because they started thinking differently.
5. Doing less is better than doing nothing.
If the current stage really doesn't allow full veganism, keeping up whatever is possible (E6) still spares animals, and leaves the door open to coming back.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Faunalytics, 2014 63% of former vegetarians and vegans didn't like standing out; 58% didn't see the diet as part of their identity; 84% weren't part of groups Survey conducted in 2014 in the United States Faunalytics, 2014 37% of former vegetarians and vegans are interested in going back - d
The strongest counter-reply: everyone has a limit, and no one should push themselves beyond it
The most serious version says: there are stages of life, such as illness, grief, a small child or unemployment, when a person can barely take care of themselves. Demanding the same of them as before is cruel.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Recognizing a limit is different from abandoning the question.
In a very hard stage, it makes sense to do less, without guilt. That doesn't make exploiting animals acceptable.
Hard stages pass.
The question is what to do when it passes: go back to what one did before, or keep the giving up as if it were permanent.
The limit is rarely on the plate.
In most cases, eating vegan takes little extra time when you have a simple menu.
- f
Back to the moral question
Even if the current stage made everything harder, the question would remain the same: is it just to make animals suffer and die when it can be avoided? The answer doesn't depend on the stage of life of whoever is asking.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
Equivocation between taste and duty
False dichotomy
Moral
Is the criterion coherent?
Forgetting the one affected
Biases
Dissociation
Once they stop, the person goes back to not thinking about the animal
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "commitments that affect others can be dropped when one enters a new stage".
If it applied to…Child supportTap to see
It could stop being paid in a new stage
Unacceptable
If it applied to…HonestyTap to see
Lying would be acceptable in a hard stage
No one accepts this as a rule
If it applied to…Caring for a petTap to see
It could be abandoned in a new stage
That's what we call abandonment
Contradictions
Honesty, caring for one's children, not mistreating the dog.
But the action changes as if they had disappeared.
But growing up usually means keeping commitments even when they get harder.
What the argument gets right
What is true
It's right that life changes, that some stages are genuinely hard and that no one should be held to account as if they always had the same availability. It's also right that guilt alone doesn't help anyone change.
But
But the stage changes what is easy, not what is right. The good answer is to help the person do what's possible at the stage they're in, and to remind them that the door is still open.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after