pull down to refresh

"Possible" isn't really that weak of a condition. You'd have to be very disingenuous to interpret that as "convenient". I don't know why anyone would do that, since there aren't any social advantages to being vegan.
If there were some sort of mandate to be vegan, then I'm sure people would invoke all manner of excuses. That's not the world we live in, though.
"Possible" is a really strong condition. The reason I replace it with convenient is because I don't think anyone takes the word "possible" seriously.
It's possible to live in a world without plywood, glue, and dyes derived from animals, but I don't know any vegans who are willing to go that far. It's just not very convenient.
reply
You're right. The real definition uses the word "practicable", which is obviously weaker.
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
Like most ethical systems, there's an acknowledgement that living requires being able to act without fully accounting for the morality of each action.
reply
That's a more accurate word, still feels odd to me that the rules are open to so much interpretation
reply
When extreme moral philosophies try to exist in a complex economy, allowances have to be made for human limitations.
Abolitionists couldn't exist entirely without the products of slavery and anarchists can't exist independent of the state, but that doesn't change the point of what they're trying to do.
reply