Vegan

in an argument regarding veganism, someone has purported that non-vegans are acting immorally because the animals do not consent to their exploitation. the second person has stated that the definition vis-a-vis the vegan society makes no mention of consent and further argues it is absurd to cosider consent from something incapable of granting it (consent being informed, and non-human animals lacking the capability to be informed). the second person makes a comparison to the exploitation of fossil fuel deposits, saying tehy oppose that exploitation, as well, and the opposition has nothing to do with consent.

the first person has asserted this is a form of "what about ism" while the second rebutted that it is just an argument from analogy. can you clear up this conflict about the form of the argument?

You're right, there's a bit of a misunderstanding here about the type of argument being used. Let's break it down:

First Person's Argument: This is an argument from rights. They argue that animals have a right to not be exploited, similar to how humans have rights. The concept of consent is used to highlight that animals cannot give permission for their exploitation.

Second Person's Argument: This is a combination of two things:
    Definition: They point out that the definition of veganism from the Vegan Society doesn't explicitly mention consent. This is true, the focus is on minimizing animal exploitation.
    Analogy: They compare animal exploitation to fossil fuel exploitation. Both are seen as harmful, but the second person argues consent isn't relevant in the case of fossil fuels.

Who's right?

The second person is correct that the Vegan Society definition doesn't mention consent.
However, the second person's analogy isn't perfect. Fossil fuels are inanimate objects, while animals are sentient beings. Consent might not be directly applicable, but the argument about minimizing harm to sentient creatures still stands.

What's the better approach?

The first person could expand their argument beyond consent. They could talk about the negative impacts of animal agriculture on animal welfare, the environment, and human health.
The second person could acknowledge the sentience of animals and the ethical concerns around their treatment, even without using the term consent.

Here's how the conversation could progress:

First Person: "You're right, consent might not be the best term. But factory farms cause immense suffering to animals. We have a moral obligation to minimize that."

Second Person: "I agree that factory farms are problematic. Perhaps we can discuss ways to improve animal welfare practices within the current system, while also exploring alternatives like plant-based proteins."

This shift would move the conversation from a debate about semantics to a more productive discussion about solutions.

they're not arguing about whether veganism is right: they're arguing about which motivations are reasonable.

You're right, that changes the context of the argument. Here's how the argument form breakdown changes:

First Person's Argument: This is still an appeal to rights, but focused on motivation. They argue that animal lack of consent is a strong ethical reason for veganism.

Second Person's Argument:  This is an argument based on the definition of veganism and the limitations of using consent as a universal motivator. They argue the ethical stance of veganism can exist without relying on consent.

Who's right?

Both have valid points. The first person highlights a core ethical concern for many vegans.
The second person is correct that the definition of veganism from the Vegan Society prioritizes minimizing exploitation, not consent specifically.

Better approach for the argument about motivations:

First Person: Acknowledge the broader definition. "Yes, veganism is about minimizing exploitation, and for me, animal sentience and their inability to consent to their treatment are key reasons why I believe exploiting them is wrong."

Second Person: Acknowledge the ethical weight of the first person's concern.  "I understand how animal sentience and lack of consent can be strong motivators for veganism.  Perhaps there are other ethical frameworks within veganism that resonate with you as well?"

This approach allows them to:

Agree on the core goal of minimizing exploitation.
Discuss the various ethical motivations that can lead someone to veganism.

This can lead to a more nuanced discussion about the different reasons people choose a vegan lifestyle.

would you call the second person's argument whataboutism?

No, in this context, the second person's argument wouldn't be considered a true whataboutism. Here's why:

Whataboutism: A whataboutism is a fallacy where you deflect criticism by bringing up an irrelevant issue.  The goal is to distract from the original point.

Second Person's Argument: Here, the second person isn't trying to distract. They are directly addressing the first person's point about consent being the key motivator for veganism.
    They use the definition of veganism to show consent isn't the only factor.
    The fossil fuel analogy highlights that other ethical concerns (environmental harm) can motivate a similar stance (opposing exploitation).

It's more like an analogy with limitations. The second person is trying to show that the concept of consent isn't universally applicable within the ethical framework of veganism. However, the analogy isn't perfect because animals are sentient beings, unlike fossil fuels.

So, what could it be called?

There isn't a single term that perfectly captures the second person's argument. It's a combination of:

Redefining the Scope: They argue the definition of veganism is broader than just consent.
Analogy with Limitations: They use the fossil fuel example to show other ethical concerns exist.

By acknowledging these points, the first person can still argue that consent, or the lack thereof, is a powerful motivator for them personally within the broader ethical framework of veganism.

what aboutism is a form of tu quoque. I'm not making any kind of accusation, I'm making an argument from analogy.