You are accepting that others aren’t and thus okay with harm reduction stances (“lesser evil is better than greater evil”), so you are not a moral purist at least, if that makes any sense. For a true moral purist evil is unacceptable so they will refuse making that choice, even if that leads to a worse outcome
Veganism is by it’s very definition harm reduction. There’s a large difference between “cannot eat less meat” and “don’t want to eat less meat”. The first is technically even vegan, the second will never be.
Applying strict moral purism to veganism means leaving most of harm reduction out, though, it’s the paradox that happens when moral purism meets lesser-evilism. If the options are getting lots of people to eat less meat by understanding changing cultural norms takes a lot of time and will happen slowly and thus encouraging them to take at least smaller steps towards leaving animal products out (more animals saved = lesser evil), or demanding everyone immediately stops eating meat and becomes vegan, which fails to consider people grown in a meat eating culture will fight aggressively against sudden changes and thus makes people less likely to listen and reduce their meat consumption (more animals eaten = greater evil), a moral purist vegan will choose the latter or do neither (leading to animals still being eaten more than with the first option - so not a harm reduction stance).
As moral purists views it is completely unacceptable to eat animals, encouraging people to eat just a little animals is not an option. If you can accept the lesser evil, you are not a moral purist, and if you don’t accept the lesser evil then you’re choosing against harm reduction
You are accepting that others aren’t and thus okay with harm reduction stances (“lesser evil is better than greater evil”), so you are not a moral purist at least, if that makes any sense. For a true moral purist evil is unacceptable so they will refuse making that choice, even if that leads to a worse outcome
Veganism is by it’s very definition harm reduction. There’s a large difference between “cannot eat less meat” and “don’t want to eat less meat”. The first is technically even vegan, the second will never be.
Applying strict moral purism to veganism means leaving most of harm reduction out, though, it’s the paradox that happens when moral purism meets lesser-evilism. If the options are getting lots of people to eat less meat by understanding changing cultural norms takes a lot of time and will happen slowly and thus encouraging them to take at least smaller steps towards leaving animal products out (more animals saved = lesser evil), or demanding everyone immediately stops eating meat and becomes vegan, which fails to consider people grown in a meat eating culture will fight aggressively against sudden changes and thus makes people less likely to listen and reduce their meat consumption (more animals eaten = greater evil), a moral purist vegan will choose the latter or do neither (leading to animals still being eaten more than with the first option - so not a harm reduction stance).
As moral purists views it is completely unacceptable to eat animals, encouraging people to eat just a little animals is not an option. If you can accept the lesser evil, you are not a moral purist, and if you don’t accept the lesser evil then you’re choosing against harm reduction
Ah, I guess I’m more of a dietary purist.