Results for 'veganism'

58 found
Order:
  1. Veganism and Children: Physical and Social Well-Being.Marcus William Hunt - 2019 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 32 (2):269-291.
    I claim that there is pro tanto moral reason for parents to not raise their child on a vegan diet because a vegan diet bears a risk of harm to both the physical and the social well-being of children. After giving the empirical evidence from nutrition science and sociology that supports this claim, I turn to the question of how vegan parents should take this moral reason into account. Since many different moral frameworks have been used to argue for (...), this is a complex question. I suggest that, on some of these moral frameworks, the moral reason that some parents have for not raising their child on a vegan diet on account of this risk is plausibly as strong as the reason they have for raising their child on a vegan diet. In other words, the moral reason I outline is weighty enough to justify some vegan parents in plausibly finding it permissible to not raise their child on a vegan diet. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  2. Veganism, Animal Welfare, and Causal Impotence.Samuel Kahn - 2020 - Journal of Animal Ethics 10 (2):161-176.
    Proponents of the utilitarian animal welfare argument (AWA) for veganism maintain that it is reasonable to expect that adopting a vegan diet will decrease animal suffering. In this paper I argue otherwise. I maintain that (i) there are plausible scenarios in which refraining from meat-consumption will not decrease animal suffering; (ii) the utilitarian AWA rests on a false dilemma; and (iii) there are no reasonable grounds for the expectation that adopting a vegan diet will decrease animal suffering. The paper (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  3. Ethical Veganism, Virtue, and Greatness of the Soul.Carlo Alvaro - 2017 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30 (6):765-781.
    Many moral philosophers have criticized intensive animal farming because it can be harmful to the environment, it causes pain and misery to a large number of animals, and furthermore eating meat and animal-based products can be unhealthful. The issue of industrially farmed animals has become one of the most pressing ethical questions of our time. On the one hand, utilitarians have argued that we should become vegetarians or vegans because the practices of raising animals for food are immoral since they (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  4. Veganism as a Virtue: How compassion and fairness show us what is virtuous about veganism.Carlo Alvaro - 2017 - Future of Food: Journal on Food, Agriculture and Society 5 (2):16-26.
    With millions of animals brought into existence and raised for food every year, their negative impact upon the environment and the staggering growth in the number of chronic diseases caused by meat and dairy diets make a global move toward ethical veganism imperative. Typi-cally, utilitarians and deontologists have led this discussion. The purpose of this paper is to pro-pose a virtuous approach to ethical veganism. Virtue ethics can be used to construct a defense of ethical veganism by (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  5. Veganism.Alejandra Mancilla - 2016 - In Paul B. Thompson & David M. Kaplan (eds.), Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics. Dordrecht: Springer.
    Narrowly understood, veganism is the practice of excluding all animal products from one’s diet, with the exception of human milk. More broadly, veganism is not only a food ethics, but it encompasses all other areas of life. As defined by the Vegan Society when it became an established charity in the UK in 1979, veganism is best understood as “a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude – as far as is possible and practicable – (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. Veganism, (Almost) Harm-Free Animal Flesh, and Nonmaleficence: Navigating dietary ethics in an unjust world.C. E. Abbate - 2019 - In Bob Fischer (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics.
    This is a chapter written for an audience that is not intimately familiar with the philosophy of animal consumption. It provides an overview of the harms that animals, the environment, and humans endure as a result of industrial animal agriculture, and it concludes with a defense of ostroveganism and a tentative defense of cultured meat.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7. A Case for Ethical Veganism.Tristram McPherson - 2014 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 11 (6):677-703.
    This paper argues for ethical veganism: the thesis that it is typically wrong to consume animal products. The paper first sets out an intuitive case for this thesis that begins with the intuitive claim that it is wrong to set fire to a cat. I then raise a methodological challenge: this is an intuitive argument for a revisionary conclusion. Even if we grant that we cannot both believe that it is permissible to drink milk, and that it is wrong (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  8. The Ethical Basis for Veganism.Tristram McPherson - 2018 - In Anne Barnhill, Mark Budolfson & Tyler Doggett (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Food Ethics. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
    This chapter examines the ethical case that can be mounted for veganism. Because there has been comparatively little discussion in ethics focused directly on veganism, the central aim of this chapter is threefold: to orient readers to (some of) the most important philosophical literature relevant to the topic, to provide a clear explanation of the current state of the ethical case for veganism, and to focus attention on the most important outstanding or underexplored questions in this domain. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  9. Speciesistic Veganism: An Anthropocentric Argument.A. G. Holdier - 2016 - In Jodey Castricano & Rasmus R. Simonsen (eds.), Critical Perspectives on Veganism. United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 41-66.
    The paper proposes an anthropocentric argument for veganism based on a speciesistic premise that most carnists likely affirm: human flourishing should be promoted. I highlight four areas of human suffering promoted by a carnistic diet: (1) health dangers to workers (both physical and psychological), (2) economic dangers to workers, (3) physical dangers to communities around slaughterhouses, and (4) environmental dangers to communities-at-large. Consequently, one could ignore the well-being of non-human animals and nevertheless recognize significant moral failings in the current (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  10. 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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11. A Case For Ethical Veganism: Intuitive And Methodological Considerations.Tristram Mcpherson - 2013 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 10 (4).
    This paper argues for ethical veganism: the thesis that it is typically wrong to consume animal products. The paper first sets out an intuitive case for this thesis that begins with the intuitive claim that it is wrong to set fire to a cat. I then raise a methodological challenge: this is an intuitive argument for a revisionary conclusion. Even if we grant that we cannot both believe that it is permissible to drink milk, and that it is wrong (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  12. A Moral Argument for Veganism.Daniel Hooley & Nathan Nobis - 2016 - In Andrew Chignell, Matthew Halteman & Terence Cuneo (eds.), Philosophy Comes to Dinner: Arguments on the Ethics of Eating.
    We offer a relatively simple and straightforward argument that each of us ought to be vegan. We don’t defend this position by appealing to ‘animal rights’ or the view that animals and humans are ‘moral equals’. Rather, we argue that animal agriculture causes serious harms to other animals (such as pain, suffering and death) and these harms are morally unjustified or caused for no good reason. This is true for both ‘factory farming’ and smaller, so-called ‘humane’ farms. We argue that (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  13. Lab‐Grown Meat and Veganism: A Virtue‐Oriented Perspective.Carlo Alvaro - 2019 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31 (135):1-15.
    The project of growing meat artificially represents for some the next best thing to humanity. If successful, it could be the solution to several problems, such as feed- ing a growing global population while reducing the environmental impact of raising animals for food and, of course, reducing the amount and degree of animal cruelty and suffering that is involved in animal farming. In this paper, I argue that the issue of the morality of such a project has been framed only (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  14. A defence of parental compromise concerning veganism.Marcus William Hunt - 2021 - Ethics and Education 16 (3):392-405.
    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 (...) 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. (shrink)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  15. Domination and Consumption: an Examination of Veganism, Anarchism, and Ecofeminism.Ian Werkheiser - 2013 - Journal of Existential and Phenomenological Theory and Culture 8 (2):135-160.
    Anarchism provides a useful set of theoretical tools for understanding and resisting our culture’s treatment of non-human animals. However, some points of disagreement exist in anarchist discourse, such as the question of veganism. In this paper I will use the debate around veganism as a way of exploring the anarchist discourse on non-human animals, how that discourse can benefit more mainstream work on non-human animals, and how work coming out of mainstream environmental discourse, in particular the ecofeminist work (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16. How to Argue for (and against) Ethical Veganism.Tristram McPherson - 2016 - In Anne Barnhill, Mark Budolfson & Tyler Doggett (eds.), Food, Ethics, and Society. New York, USA: Oxford University Press.
    This paper has two goals. The first is to offer a carefully reasoned argument for ethical veganism: the view that it is (at least typically) wrong to eat or otherwise use animal products. The second goal is to give you, the reader, some important tools for developing, evaluating, and replying to reasoned arguments for ethical conclusions. I begin by offering you a brief essay, arguing that it is wrong to eat meat. This essay both introduces central elements of my (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  17. The Pig’s Squeak: Towards a Renewed Aesthetic Argument for Veganism.A. Holdier - 2016 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (4):631-642.
    In 1906, Henry Stephens Salt published a short collection of essays that presented several rhetorically powerful, if formally deficient arguments for the vegetarian position. By interpreting Salt as a moral sentimentalist with ties to Aristotelian virtue ethics, I propose that his aesthetic argument deserves contemporary consideration. First, I connect ethics and aesthetics with the Greek concepts of kalon and kalokagathia that depend equally on beauty and morality before presenting Salt’s assertion: slaughterhouses are disgusting, therefore they should not be promoted. I (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  18. The Immorality of Eating Meat.Mylan Engel - 2000 - Chapter in The Moral Life:856-889.
    Unlike other ethical arguments for veganism, the argument advanced is not predicated on the wrongness of speciesism, nor does it depend on your believing that all animals are equal or that all animals have a right to life, nor is it predicated on some highly contentious metaethical theory which you reject. Rather, it is predicated on your beliefs. Simply put, the argument shows that even those of you who are steadfastly committed to valuing humans over nonhumans are nevertheless committed (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  19.  44
    MEAT MAY NEVER DIE.Carlo Alvaro - 2022 - TRACE 8:156-163.
    The goal of ethical veganism is a vegan world or, at least, a significantly vegan world. However, despite the hard work done by vegan activists, global meat consumption has been increasing (Saiidi 2019; Christen 2021). Vegan advocates have focused on ethics but have ignored the importance of tradition and identity. And the advent of veggie meat alternatives has promoted food that emulates animal products thereby perpetuating the meat paradigm. I suggest that, in order to make significant changes toward ending (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20. Why I Am a Vegan (and You Should Be One Too).Tristram McPherson - 2015 - In Philosophy Comes to Dinner. Routledge. pp. 73-91.
    This paper argues for what I call modest ethical veganism: the view that it is typically wrong to use or eat products made from or by animals such as cows, pigs, or chickens. The argument has three central parts. First, I argue that a central explanation for the wrongness of causing suffering rests upon what it is like to experience such suffering, and that we have good reasons to think that animals suffer in ways that are relevantly analogous to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   12 citations  
  21. Vegan parents and children: zero parental compromise.Carlo Alvaro - 2020 - Ethics and Education (4):476-498.
    Marcus William Hunt argues that when co-parents disagree over whether to raise their child (or children) as a vegan, they should reach a compromise as a gift given by one parent to the other out of respect for his or her authority. Josh Millburn contends that Hunt’s proposal of parental compromise over veganism is unacceptable on the ground that it overlooks respect for animal rights, which bars compromising. However, he contemplates the possibility of parental compromise over ‘unusual eating,’ of (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  22. Field Deaths in Plant Agriculture.Bob Fischer & Andy Lamey - 2018 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31 (4):409-428.
    We know that animals are harmed in plant production. Unfortunately, though, we know very little about the scale of the problem. This matters for two reasons. First, we can’t decide how many resources to devote to the problem without a better sense of its scope. Second, this information shortage throws a wrench in arguments for veganism, since it’s always possible that a diet that contains animal products is complicit in fewer deaths than a diet that avoids them. In this (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   16 citations  
  23. Pleasures of the Flesh.Jasmine Gunkel - forthcoming - Social Theory and Practice.
    I give an argument for veganism by drawing parallels between a) bestiality and animal fighting, and b) animal product consumption. Attempts to draw principled distinctions between the practices fail. The wrong-making features of bestiality and animal fighting are also found in animal product consumption. These parallels give us insight into why popular objections to veganism, such as the Inefficacy Argument, are inadequate. Because it is often difficult to enact significant life changes, I hope that seeing the parallels between (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  24.  92
    An Argument Against Treating Non-Human Animal Bodies as Commodities.Marc G. Wilcox - 2022 - Journal of Value Inquiry:1-13.
    Some animal defenders are committed to complete abstinence from animal products. However the strongest arguments for adopting veganism only seem to require that one avoid using animal products, where use or procurement of these products will harm sentient animals. As such, there is seemingly a gap between our intuition and our argument. In this article I attempt to defend the more comprehensive claim that we have a moral reason to avoid using animal products, regardless of the method of procurement. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  25. How Should Vegans Live?Xavier Cohen - 2015 - Journal of Practical Ethics 3 (2).
    In this essay, I look at the significant portion of vegans who are vegan because they care about harm to animals. I investigate what lifestyle is in fact consistent with caring about harm to animals, which I begin by calling consistent veganism. I argue that the lifestyle that consistently follows from this underlying conviction behind many people’s veganism is in fact distinct from a vegan lifestyle.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  26. The Ethics of Producing In Vitro Meat.G. Owen Schaefer & Julian Savulescu - 2014 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 31 (2):188-202.
    The prospect of consumable meat produced in a laboratory setting without the need to raise and slaughter animals is both realistic and exciting. Not only could such in vitro meat become popular due to potential cost savings, but it also avoids many of the ethical and environmental problems with traditional meat productions. However, as with any new technology, in vitro meat is likely to face some detractors. We examine in detail three potential objections: 1) in vitro meat is disrespectful, either (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   14 citations  
  27.  47
    Creating Carnists.Rachel Fredericks & Jeremy Fischer - forthcoming - Philosophers' Imprint.
    We argue that individual and institutional caregivers have a defeasible moral duty to provide dependent children with plant-based diets and related education. Notably, our three arguments for this claim do not presuppose any general duty of veganism. Instead, they are grounded in widely shared intuitions about children’s interests and caregivers’ responsibilities, as well as recent empirical research relevant to children’s moral development, autonomy development, and physical health. Together, these arguments constitute a strong cumulative case against inculcating in children the (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  28. Harnessing Moral Psychology to Reduce Meat Consumption.Joshua May & Victor Kumar - forthcoming - Journal of the American Philosophical Association.
    How can we make moral progress on factory farming? Part of the answer lies in human moral psychology. Meat consumption remains high, despite increased awareness of its negative impact on animal welfare. Weakness of will is part of the explanation: acceptance of the ethical arguments doesn’t always motivate changes in dietary habits. However, we draw on scientific evidence to argue that many consumers aren’t fully convinced that they morally ought to reduce their meat consumption. We then identify two key psychological (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  29. Manly Meat and Gendered Eating: Correcting Imbalance and Seeking Virtue.Christina Van Dyke - 2016 - In Andrew Chignell, Terence Cuneo & Matthew C. Halteman (eds.), Philosophy Comes to Dinner: Arguments on the Ethics of Eating. New York: Routledge Press. pp. 39-55.
    The ecofeminist argument for veganism is powerful. Meat consumption is a deeply gendered act that is closely tied to the systematic objectification of women and nonhuman animals. I worry, however, that presenting veganism as "the" moral ideal might reinforce rather than alleviate the disordered status quo in gendered eating, further disadvantaging women in patriarchal power structures. In this chapter, I advocate a feminist account of ethical eating that treats dietary choices as moral choices insofar as they constitute an (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  30. Utilitarianism and animal cruelty: Further doubts.Ben Davies - 2016 - De Ethica 3 (3):5-19.
    Utilitarianism has an apparent pedigree when it comes to animal welfare. It supports the view that animal welfare matters just as much as human welfare. And many utilitarians support and oppose various practices in line with more mainstream concern over animal welfare, such as that we should not kill animals for food or other uses, and that we ought not to torture animals for fun. This relationship has come under tension from many directions. The aim of this article is to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  31. Review: Nick Cooney: Veganomics. [REVIEW]Florian L. Wüstholz - 2014 - Tierethik 8:90-94.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  32. Folgt aus dem unwert der tierhaltung ein verbot Des fleischkonsums?Simon Gaus - 2013 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 88 (1):257-267.
    It is natural to assume that it can only be morally permissible for consumers to buy meat products if the breeding and killing of animals for the purpose of meat production is morally acceptable. is assumption presupposes a stable and morally relevant connection between the consumption and the production of meat. While both act-consequentialism and the Kantian idea of generalizability initially appear to support that view, neither of them succeeds in establishing a connection of the required kind.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  33.  72
    Just Fodder: The Ethics of Feeding Animals; By Josh Milburn. [REVIEW]Kyle Johannsen - forthcoming - Journal of Moral Philosophy.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  34. Dialogues on Ethical Vegetarianism, Part 1.Michael Huemer - manuscript
    A four-part series of dialogues between two philosophy students, M and V. The question: is it wrong to eat meat? M and V review the standard arguments plus a few new ones. Part 1 discusses the suffering caused by factory farming, and how one's intelligence affects the badness of suffering.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  35. Corrupting the Youth: Should Parents Feed their Children Meat?Daniel Butt - 2021 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 24 (4):981-997.
    This article is concerned with choices that parents or guardians make about the food they give to their children. Those with primary responsibility for the care of young children determine the set of foods that their children eat and have a significant impact on children’s subsequent dietary choices, both in later childhood and in adulthood. I argue that parents have a morally significant reason not to feed meat to their children, which stems from their fiduciary responsibility for the child’s moral (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  36. Utylitaryzm i welfaryzm a uzasadnienie wegetarianizmu.Krzysztof Saja - 2013 - Analiza I Egzystencja 22:239-247.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  37. Dialogues on Ethical Vegetarianism, Part 2.Michael Huemer - manuscript
    A four-part series of dialogues between two philosophy students, M and V. The question: is it wrong to eat meat? M and V review the standard arguments plus a few new ones. Part 2 discusses miscellaneous defenses of meat-eating. These include the claim that the consumer is not responsible for wrongs committed by farm workers, that a single individual cannot have any effect on the meat industry, that farm animals are better off living on factory farms than never existing at (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  38. Dialogues on Ethical Vegetarianism, Part 3.Michael Huemer - manuscript
    A four-part series of dialogues between two philosophy students, M and V. The question: is it wrong to eat meat? M and V review the standard arguments plus a few new ones. Part 3 discusses the idea that creatures have different degrees of consciousness, the sense that certain animal welfare positions "sound crazy", and the role of empathy in moral judgment.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  39. Beyond Stewardship: Reimagining Our Kinship With Animals.Matthew C. Halteman & Megan Halteman Zwart - 2019 - In David Paul Warners & Matthew Kuperus Heun (eds.), Beyond Stewardship: New Approaches to Creation Care. Grand Rapids, USA: Calvin College Press. pp. 121-134.
    This book chapter is a work of popular philosophy that offers general readers an opportunity to reimagine their relationship to non-human creatures by living vicariously through the experience of Jasmin--a hypothetical college student whose encounters with a cow, goat, and rooster on a visit to a local farm trigger a transformation in her views and actions toward other animals, allowing her to see them for the first time as subjects of their own lives rather than as objects for human use. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  40. Nonculpably Ignorant Meat Eaters & Epistemically Unjust Meat Producers.C. E. Abbate - 2020 - Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 9 (9):46-54.
    In my recent paper, “The Epistemology of Meat-Eating,” I advanced an epistemological theory that explains why so many people continue to eat animals, even after they encounter anti-factory farming arguments. I began by noting that because meat-eating is seriously immoral, meat-eaters must either (1) believe that eating animals isn’t seriously immoral, or (2) believe that meat eating is seriously immoral (and thus they must be seriously immoral). I argued that standard meat-eaters don’t believe that eating animals is seriously immoral because (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  41.  90
    Andrew F. Smith, A Critique of the Moral Defense of Vegetarianism. Reviewed by.Patrick Clipsham - 2016 - Philosophy in Review 36 (4):179-181.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  42. Food fight! Davis versus Regan on the ethics of eating beef.Andy Lamey - 2007 - Journal of Social Philosophy 38 (2):331–348.
    One of the starting assumptions in the debate over the ethical status of animals is that someone who is committed to reducing animal suffering should not eat meat. Steven Davis has recently advanced a novel criticism of this view. He argues that individuals who are committed to reducing animal suffering should not adopt a vegetarian or vegan diet, as Tom Regan an other animal rights advocates claim, but one containing free-range beef. To make his case Davis highlights an overlooked form (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   15 citations  
  43. Why we should stop using animal-derived products on patients without their consent.Daniel Rodger - 2022 - Journal of Medical Ethics 48 (10):702-706.
    Medicines and medical devices containing animal-derived ingredients are frequently used on patients without their informed consent, despite a significant proportion of patients wanting to know if an animal-derived product is going to be used in their care. Here, I outline three arguments for why this practice is wrong. First, I argue that using animal-derived medical products on patients without their informed consent undermines respect for their autonomy. Second, it risks causing nontrivial psychological harm. Third, it is morally inconsistent to respect (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  44.  73
    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 (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  45. (Draft) Cows, crickets and clams: On the alleged 'vegan' obligation to eat different kinds of meat.Benjamin Davies - manuscript
    Vegans do not eat meat. This statement seems so obvious that one might be tempted to claim that it is analytically true. Yet several authors argue that the underlying logic of veganism warrants – perhaps even demands – eating meat. I begin by considering an important principle that has been important in motivating vegan meat-eating, related to an obligation to reduce or minimise harm. I offer an alternative, rights-based view, and suggest that while this might support an obligation to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  46. Duty and the Beast: Should We Eat Meat in the Name of Animal Rights?Andy Lamey - 2019 - Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    The moral status of animals is a subject of controversy both within and beyond academic philosophy, especially regarding the question of whether and when it is ethical to eat meat. A commitment to animal rights and related notions of animal protection is often thought to entail a plant-based diet, but recent philosophical work challenges this view by arguing that, even if animals warrant a high degree of moral standing, we are permitted - or even obliged - to eat meat. Andy (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  47. The moral footprint of animal products.Krzysztof Saja - 2013 - Agriculture and Human Values 30 (2):193–202.
    Most ethical discussions about diet are focused on the justification of specific kinds of products rather than an individual assessment of the moral footprint of eating products of certain animal species. This way of thinking is represented in the typical division of four dietary attitudes. There are vegans, vegetarians, welfarists and ordinary meat -eaters. However, the common “all or nothing” discussions between meat -eaters, vegans and vegetarians bypass very important factors in assessing dietary habits. I argue that if we want (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  48. On a Failed Defense of Factory Farming.Stephen Puryear, Stijn Bruers & László Erdős - 2017 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30 (2):311-323.
    Timothy Hsiao attempts to defend industrial animal farming by arguing that it is not inherently cruel. We raise three main objections to his defense. First, his argument rests on a misunderstanding of the nature of cruelty. Second, his conclusion, though technically true, is so weak as to be of virtually no moral significance or interest. Third, his contention that animals lack moral standing, and thus that mistreating them is wrong only insofar as it makes one more disposed to mistreat other (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  49. The Animal Ethics of Temple Grandin: A Protectionist Analysis.Andy Lamey - 2019 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (1):1-22.
    This article brings animal protection theory to bear on Temple Grandin’s work, in her capacity both as a designer of slaughter facilities and as an advocate for omnivorism. Animal protection is a better term for what is often termed animal rights, given that many of the theories grouped under the animal rights label do not extend the concept of rights to animals. I outline the nature of Grandin’s system of humane slaughter as it pertains to cattle. I then outline four (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  50. Minimalizacja cierpienia zwierząt a wegetarianizm.Krzysztof Saja - 2013 - Analiza I Egzystencja 22:67-83.
    The article is a reductio ad absurdum of assumptions which are shared by a large number of followers of the animal welfare movement and utilitarianism. I argue that even if we accept the main ethical arguments for a negative moral assessment of eating meat we should not promote vegetarianism but rather beefism (eating only meat from beef cattle). I also argue that some forms of vegetarianism, i.e. ichtivegetarianism, can be much more morally worse than normal meat diet. In order to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
1 — 50 / 58