RETURN TO THOUGHTS

Diet Taxonomy

I have devised a taxonomy of diets. The columns describe different diet-types, and the rows describe different motivations for having some diet-type.

Hover over any of the first row or column for an explanation of what it means.

Omnivory - Eating plants, meat and other animal products
Cannibalism - Eating human flesh
Pescetarianism - Abstaining from all meat except seafood
Vegetarianism - Abstaining from all meat
Veganism - Abstaining from all animal products

Taste - A taste-preference is cause of diet
Religious - A religious prohibition or doctrine is cause of diet
Traditional - That diet is the one that they have always had. There is no further reason. Alternatively, it might be that this is the only sort of food some community has had available, so they have their diet by tradition
Ethical - A belief that it is morally right is cause of diet
Medical - Medical prescription or requirement is the cause of diet
Health - A belief that it is the healthiest is cause of diet

Of course, these categories aren't meant to be exclusive or exhaustive. There are many more niche diet-types I haven't mentioned (i.e. the paleo diet. There are truly endless types of diet), and many people will fall under multiple categories. Someone might start as an ethical vegetarian, and soon become in addition a taste vegetarian, because the smell of meat has begun to repel them, and now through not having meat, they find meat gross. Many people who have their diet for a religious reason are likely also ethically motivated, because presumably if a deity commands you do maintain a certain diet, that diet is also morally right.

One way to make it exclusive would be to insist that the motivation a person falls under is whichever motivation for their diet is most dominant. So, suppose a vegan is lactose intolerant and so one motivation for their veganism is medical, but their dominant motivation is ethical, so they are just an ethical vegan, not a medical vegan.

Additionally, a few of these diet positions just aren’t really observed by anyone. A "medical cannibal" just seems absurd.

However, some of these different categories will have a slightly different diet because of their motivation. For example, an ethical vegetarian might eat artificial meat because no animals were harmed, while a taste vegetarian would not because "abstaining from meat" results from a taste-preference.

There is one more distinction you can draw to double the number of diet-positions generated: a doxastic/pragmatic distinction. A diet position is doxastic for a person if that person has the relevant motivations and a diet position is pragmatic if that person actually practices that diet.

I think a common position is to be a doxastic ethical vegetarian/vegan, but a pragmatic taste omnivore. Those who have harmony with their doxastic and pragmatic positions are probably the happiest. I think the only reasons why they might diverge is from either weakness of the will (i.e. akrasia) or practical circumstances making their harmony unfeasible (I knew someone who was a doxastic ethical vegetarian, and at one point a pragmatic vegetarian, but because of medical reasons, had to become a pragmatic medical omnivore. How awful for him!).

If you are wondering what I fall under, I am a Pragmatic Religious (kosher) Pescetarian and Doxastic Ethical Vegetarian.