I definitely don't want to make this into a huge debate, but I obviously agree with Maya here, and as I read what you wrote I was reminded of people who ask me questions about my vegetarianism. It usually goes something like "why are you a vegetarian?" I explain it's for ethical reasons. Then they immediately ask "but do you wear leather?" When I say no, they always seem a bit deflated. Then they ask about whether I eat dairy and I explain that I do but try to limit it. Their faces light up, as if they have "caught" me.
I fail to see their point, however. What are they "catching" me in? Apparently a perceived inconsistency. But who cares? I don't go around saying "I'm so much better than you are because I don't eat meat and I don't wear animal skins." If *they* perceive my vegetarianism as such a threat, I think that says more about them than it does about me. I also don't understand what they hope do gain. Do they think that by pointing out this potential inconsistency, I will say "wow, you're totally right, I'm going to start eating meat and wearing fur and leather now." And if I DID say that, what would they care? Do they have some vested interest in me eating meat and wearing animal skins?
I understand that from a philosophical perspective, people might like consistency. The only thing that bothers me is if someone mis-labels themselves. So I absolutely loathe it when someone who doesn't eat red meat, but eats other animals, or someone who eats fish but no other flesh, calls themselves a vegetarian. I think that using the label is damaging to real vegetarians because it confuses non-vegetarians. But no one here was doing that. Some people were just saying that they prefer not to wear leather when it doesn't interfere with their comfort. At the end of the day, they have ethical issues with it, but they weigh those issues with competing interests, such as their ability to wear shoes with any kind of ease. When the weighing is done, shoes win out, but jackets do not. I actually don't think it's inconsistent. I'm sure people like Maya would agree that using an animal for shoes is just as cruel/disturbing/etc. as using it for jackets. But she has a competing interest when it comes to shoes that doesn't exist with other items of clothing. It's like someone decides how much they are willing to sacrifice, and they say "on a scale of 1-10, I will make a sacrifice that is equivalent to a 7." If not wearing leather shoes amounts to a sacrifice of a 9 for that person, they will wear leather shoes. If not wearing a leather coat is a sacrifice of a 4, they won't wear the coat. Everyone has a right to make their own scale.
Why should anyone dictate to someone else that they have to sacrifice at a level of 10 for the questionable purpose of consistency? If Maya decides she will sacrifice at a level of 8 and Angie at a level of 2 (obviously, these are arbitrary numbers, and everyone's scale would be different), that is internally consistent for that individual. But even if I were to agree that they were being inconsistent, it seems to me that the only value in demanding consistency is being able to call someone a hypocrite, and I don't see much value in that.
I think the only true, useful, purpose of consistency is that it enables someone to use a label. But we're all intelligent enough to explain our preferences and if there isn't one that fits, we don't have to rely on a label, despite its ease of use.
