Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. What Would the Virtuous Person Eat? The Case for Virtuous Omnivorism.Christopher A. Bobier - 2021 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 34 (3):1-19.
    Would the virtuous person eat animals? According to some ethicists, the answer is a resounding no, at least for the virtuous person living in an affluent society. The virtuous person cares about animal suffering, and so, she will not contribute to practices that involve animal suffering when she can easily adopt a strict plant-based diet. The virtuous person is temperate, and temperance involves not indulging in unhealthy diets, which include diets that incorporate animals. Moreover, it is unjust for an animal (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • How Might a Stoic Eat in Accordance with Nature and “Environmental Facts”?Kai Whiting, William O. Stephens, Edward Simpson & Leonidas Konstantakos - 2020 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 33 (3):369-389.
    This paper explores how to deliberate about food choices from a Stoic perspective informed by the value of environmental sustainability. This perspective is reconstructed from both ancient and contemporary sources of Stoic philosophy. An account of what the Stoic goal of “living in agreement with Nature” would amount to in dietary practice is presented. Given ecological facts about food production, an argument is made that Stoic virtue made manifest as wisdom, justice, courage, and temperance compel Stoic practitioners to select locally (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Should Whiteheadians Be Vegetarians? A Critical Analysis of the Thoughts of Hartshorne and Dombrowski.Jan Deckers - 2011 - Journal of Animal Ethics 1 (2):195-209.
    A number of philosophers have found inspiration in the writings of Alfred Whitehead to develop their ideas on environmental and animal ethics. I explore the writings of Charles Hartshorne and Daniel Dombrowski to address the question of whether Whiteheadians should be vegetarians. I conclude that there is a morally relevant distinction between plants and animals, based on the Whiteheadian view that animals have higher grades of experience, and that this distinction grounds a moral duty to adopt minimal moral veganism.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • In Defence of the Vegan Project.Jan Deckers - 2013 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 10 (2):187-195.
    The vegan project is defined as the project that strives for radical legal reform to pass laws that would reserve the consumption of animal products to a very narrow range of situations, resulting in vegan diets being the default diets for the majority of human beings. Two objections that have been raised against such a project are described. The first is that such a project would jeopardise the nutritional adequacy of human diets. The second is that it would alienate human (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Why Milk Consumption is the Bigger Problem: Ethical Implications and Deaths per Calorie Created of Milk Compared to Meat Production.Karin Kolbe - 2018 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31 (4):467-481.
    Pictures of sides of beef, hanging from overhead rails in refrigerated warehouses and meat-processing plants, often leave a feeling of unease. These pictures provoke the notion that human beings have no right to inflict suffering and death on other sentient beings for the sole purpose of providing food. However, the ethical analysis conducted in this study shows that meat production, if animal welfare and deaths per calorie created are considered, is less of a pressing problem compared to the production of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Obesity, Public Health, and the Consumption of Animal Products: Ethical Concerns and Political Solutions.Jan Deckers - 2013 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 10 (1):29-38.
    Partly in response to rising rates of obesity, many governments have published healthy eating advice. Focusing on health advice related to the consumption of animal products (APs), I argue that the individualistic paradigm that prevails must be replaced by a radically new approach that emphasizes the duty of all human beings to restrict their negative “Global Health Impacts” (GHIs). If they take human rights seriously, many governments from nations with relatively large negative GHIs—including the Australian example provided here—must develop strategies (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Normalised, human-centric discourses of meat and animals in climate change, sustainability and food security literature.Paula Arcari - 2017 - Agriculture and Human Values 34 (1):69-86.
    The large-scale, intensive production of meat and other animal products, also known as the animal-industrial complex, is our largest food system in terms of global land use and contribution to environmental degradation. Despite the environmental impact of the meat industry, in much of the policy literature on climate and environmental change, sustainability and food security, meat continues to be included as part of a sustainable food future. In this paper, I present outcomes of a discourse analysis undertaken on a selection (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  • What policy should be adopted to curtail the negative global health impacts associated with the consumption of farmed animal products? [REVIEW]Jan Deckers - 2010 - Res Publica 16 (1):57-72.
    The negative global health impacts (GHIs) associated with the consumption of farmed animal products are wide-ranging and morally significant. This paper considers four options that policy-makers might adopt to curtail the negative GHIs associated with the consumption of farmed animal products. These options are: 1. to introduce a ban on the consumption of farmed animal products; 2. to increase the costs of farmed animal products; 3. to educate people about the negative GHIs associated with the consumption of farmed animal products; (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • Saving the polar bear, saving the world: Can the capabilities approach do justice to humans, animals and ecosystems? [REVIEW]Elizabeth Cripps - 2010 - Res Publica 16 (1):1-22.
    Martha Nussbaum has expanded the capabilities approach to defend positive duties of justice to individuals who fall below Rawls’ standard for fully cooperating members of society, including sentient nonhuman animals. Building on this, David Schlosberg has defended the extension of capabilities justice not only to individual animals but also to entire species and ecosystems. This is an attractive vision: a happy marriage of social, environmental and ecological justice, which also respects the claims of individual animals. This paper asks whether it (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations