Leading by Example

In response to Andy's post 'The Final Count Down' (4/29/2013):

One point which Andy's post brings up is that some people are not terribly well-suited to be activists, simply due to personality.

I think this is true, but I do not think that this means such people are unimportant in the field of activism, even if they are not activists themselves.  Leading by example can do just as much as, if not more than, vocally advocating for a cause.  Clearly, doing both is ideal, but if a person can do just one, I am at least slightly inclined to say that they should lead by example.

If a meat-eater who has no medical or otherwise valid moral reason not to become vegetarian or vegan advocates for vegetarianism or veganism, they will likely have great difficulty convincing people to listen to them.  Hypocrisy, while not actually relevant to an argument from logic, nevertheless has a large emotional impact on many people.  For example, Peter Singer's argument that everyone should donate as large a portion of their income as possible to poverty relief would probably have a larger following if he donated such a percentage himself.  Philosophers, logicians, and some others may consistently differentiate between the argument and the individual making it, but the populace as a whole does not, so a hypocritical advocate for animal rights is unlikely to make much of an impact.

In contrast, a non-activist vegetarian or vegan may end up inadvertently convincing others to adopt their viewpoint.  Since they are not adopting a directly aggressive stance, as many activists do, people will feel less inclined to defend themselves mindlessly, and may actually think about the non-activist's points.  They may also feel less intimidated, and be therefore more likely to ask questions.  If a vegetarian or vegan explains, upon request, their reasoning for adopting their diet, meat-eaters may consider their arguments later on, and perhaps be persuaded.

I do still think that the ideal position for a supporter of animal rights to take is one of both activism and personal action.  I am opposed to the idea of violent, or even especially aggressive, activism, because the first misses the entire point and I don't think that the second is effective.  Instead, I support rational, civil activism, wherein one uses reasoned and polite arguments to attempt to sway others to one's cause.  One does not insult them or lean overly much on emotionally charged arguments, although some use of emotions or even care ethics may be justified.