Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. The Replaceability Argument in the Ethics of Animal Husbandry.Nicolas Delon - 2016 - Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics.
    Most people agree that inflicting unnecessary suffering upon animals is wrong. Many fewer people, including among ethicists, agree that painlessly killing animals is necessarily wrong. The most commonly cited reason is that death (without pain, fear, distress) is not bad for them in a way that matters morally, or not as significantly as it does for persons, who are self-conscious, make long-term plans and have preferences about their own future. Animals, at least those that are not persons, lack a morally (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Of Hosts and Men: Westworld and Speciesism.François Jaquet & Florian Cova - 2018 - In James B. South & Kimberly S. Engels (eds.), Westworld and Philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 217–228.
    People's attitude to animals is similar to the attitude Westworld has people adopt vis‐a‐vis the hosts: People often deem animal suffering acceptable because it improves their well‐being but still feel upset when an animal is mistreated just for the sake of it. Speciesism is the view that human well‐being matters more than that of other creatures. One justification for this view attempts to ground human beings’ special moral status in their membership in the human species itself. Some of Westworld's characters (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Problem of Justifying Animal-Friendly Animal Husbandry.Konstantin Deininger - 2022 - Transforming Food Systems: Ethics, Innovation and Responsibility.
    Intense or industrial animal husbandry is morally bad. This consensus in animal ethics led to the emergence of veganism which is recently in decline in favour of ‘conscientious carnivorism’ which advocates eating animal products from animal-friendly animal husbandry in response to the moral problems of industrial farming. Advocates of animal-friendly husbandry justify rearing and killing ‘happy animals’ by highlighting that the animals live pleasant lives and would not have existed if not reared for human consumption. In this paper, I tackle (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Default Vegetarianism and Veganism.Timothy Perrine - 2021 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 34 (2):1-19.
    This paper describes a pair of dietary practices I label default vegetarianism and default veganism. The basic idea is that one adopts a default of adhering to vegetarian and vegan diets, with periodic exceptions. While I do not exhaustively defend either of these dietary practices as morally required, I do suggest that they are more promising than other dietary practices that are normally discussed like strict veganism and vegetarianism. For they may do a better job of striking a balance between (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Consequentialism and Nonhuman Animals.Tyler John & Jeff Sebo - 2020 - In Douglas W. Portmore (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Consequentialism. New York, USA: Oup Usa. pp. 564-591.
    Consequentialism is thought to be in significant conflict with animal rights theory because it does not regard activities such as confinement, killing, and exploitation as in principle morally wrong. Proponents of the “Logic of the Larder” argue that consequentialism results in an implausibly pro-exploitation stance, permitting us to eat farmed animals with positive well- being to ensure future such animals exist. Proponents of the “Logic of the Logger” argue that consequentialism results in an implausibly anti-conservationist stance, permitting us to exterminate (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Moral vegetarianism.Tyler Doggett - 2018 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Should Moral Vegetarians Avoid Eating Vegetables?Christopher Bobier - 2019 - Food Ethics 5 (1-2).
    David DeGrazia (2009) and Stuart Rachels (2011), among others, offer moral arguments in favor of adopting a vegetarian diet that have, they claim, broad appeal. Rather than relying on an account of animal rights or a particular ethical theory, these arguments rely on the moral principle that an extensive amount of pain requires moral justification. Since people do not need to eat meat in order to survive, the arguments conclude that the pain that animals experience in factory farming is unjustified. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Virtues and Animals: A Minimally Decent Ethic for Practical Living in a Non-ideal World.Cheryl Abbate - 2014 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 27 (6):909-929.
    Traditional approaches to animal ethics commonly emerge from one of two influential ethical theories: Regan’s deontology (The case for animal rights. University of California, Berkeley, 1983) and Singer’s preference utilitarianism (Animal liberation. Avon Books, New York, 1975). I argue that both of the theories are unsuccessful at providing adequate protection for animals because they are unable to satisfy the three conditions of a minimally decent theory of animal protection. While Singer’s theory is overly permissive, Regan’s theory is too restrictive. I (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Killing for pleasure.Tzachi Zamir - 2004 - Between the Species 13 (4):4.
    This paper formulates and defends a version of moral vegetarianism. Since eating animals is not causally connected to their death, I begin with analyzing the moral status of consumer actions that do not, taken on their own, harm animals . I then formulate a version of moral vegetarianism . Three different opponents of moral vegetarianism are then distinguished and criticized . I then take up the argument according to which eating animals benefits them . I close with the question of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  • Human diets and animal welfare: The illogic of the larder. [REVIEW]Gaverick Matheny & Kai M. A. Chan - 2005 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (6):579-594.
    Few moral arguments have been made against vegetarian diets. One exception is the “Logic of the Larder:” We do animals a favor by purchasing their meat, eggs, and milk, for if we did not purchase these products, fewer animals would exist. This argument fails because many farm animals have lives that are probably not worth living, while others prevent a significant number of wild animals from existing. Even if this were not so, the purchase of animal products uses resources that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Rights & Nature: Approaching Environmental Issues by Way of Human Rights.Andrew T. Brei - 2013 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26 (2):393-408.
    Due to the significant and often careless human impact on the natural environment, there are serious problems facing the people of today and of future generations. To date, ethical, aesthetic, religious, and economic arguments for the conservation and protection of the natural environment have made relatively little headway. Another approach, one capable of garnering attention and motivating action, would be welcome. There is another approach, one that I will call a rights approach. Speaking generally, this approach is an attempt to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • Toward a Moderate Hierarchical View About the Moral Status of Animals.Stefan Sencerz - 2024 - Etyka 59 (1-2):38-65.
    In this essay, I develop a moderate hierarchical position about the moral status of animals that is based on two factors: on the level of mental development of a being who is affected and on the significance of the interests that are affected. I argue that this view accommodates two different sets of moral intuitions. On one hand, it explains why, in general, humans have the special moral standing that is typically attributed to us. On the other hand, it also (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark