A defence of parental compromise concerning veganism

Ethics and Education 16 (3):392-405 (2021)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Co-parents who differ in their ideal child rearing policies should compromise, argues Marcus William Hunt. Josh Milburn and Carlo Alvaro dispute this when it comes to veganism. Milburn argues that veganism is a matter of justice and that to compromise over justice is (typically) impermissible. I suggest that compromise over justice is often permissible, and that compromise over justice may be required by justice itself. Alvaro offers aesthetic, gustatory, and virtue-based arguments for ethical veganism, showing that veganism involves sensibilities and virtues, and argues that veganism involves a belief. Alvaro takes this to show that parental compromise is impermissible. I suggest that Alvaro’s arguments are implausible and that the shaping of a child’s sensibilities and virtues is an apt matter for parental compromise.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
HUNADO-4
Upload history
Archival date: 2021-05-13
View other versions
Added to PP index
2021-05-13

Total views
436 ( #17,917 of 71,140 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
158 ( #3,632 of 71,140 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.