After witnessing a vegetarian friend pick off all the meat from a pepperoni pizza she received instead of the cheese pizza she ordered, Julia Galef at Rationally Speaking considered the issue of vegetarian purity:

People adopt a general behavioral rule, or “heuristic,” that works for most cases, but then they stick to it even in those particular cases where it doesn’t apply. … Valuing the label “vegetarian” rather than the logic behind the label makes your vegetarianism seem more like a matter of remaining pure than of avoiding harm. …

One of the interesting features of evolution is that it often produces “good enough” solutions, rules that are imperfect but that work well enough for us to get by. … They’re “good enough” to give us the right outcome most of the time. But that doesn’t mean we can’t do better.

But today Elaine from Vegan Soapbox argued just the opposite. In her Open Letter to Christopher Cox — the man who put vegan purity on trial last week by proposing an oysters for vegans scheme — Elaine maintained that doing better is too complex and confusing, so let’s stick with purity:

It’s more rational to choose vegan over ethical flexitarian. It’s essentially choosing simplicity over complexity, with the same end result. This point is well made in Jonathan Safran Foer’s book “Eating Animals,” towards the end where he explains why he’s betting on vegetarian over “humane meat.” A vegan diet is simply simpler. …

Mr. Cox, I ask that you please stop trying to change the definition of “vegan.” … I help run a vegan potluck group full of mostly nonvegans who like to experiment with vegan food. Because of you, I had to remind them that oysters are not vegan. … Vegan means NO ANIMAL PRODUCTS. By implying that vegans should eat oysters, you are confusing people. Please stop.