Related categories
Siblings:
98 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 50 / 98
  1. Carol J. Adams (2000). The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. Continuum.
    New Tenth Anniversary edition of this classic text with a new preface by the author, compares myths about meat-eating with myths about manliness, and seeks to ...
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Michael J. Almeida & Mark H. Bernstein (2000). Opportunistic Carnivorism. Journal of Applied Philosophy 17 (2):205–211.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Susan J. Armstrong & Richard George Botzler (eds.) (2008). The Animal Ethics Reader. Routledge.
    The Animal Ethics Reader is the first comprehensive, state-of-the-art anthology of readings on this substantial area of study and interest. A subject that regularly captures the headlines, the book is designed to appeal to anyone interested in tracing the history of the subject, as well as providing a powerful insight into the debate as it has developed. The recent wealth of material published in this area has not, until now, been collected in one volume. Readings are arranged thematically, carefully presenting (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Cathryn Bailey (2007). We Are What We Eat: Feminist Vegetarianism and the Reproduction of Racial Identity. Hypatia 22 (2):39-59.
    : In this article, Bailey analyzes the relationship between ethical vegetarianism (or the claim that ethical vegetarianism is morally right for all people) and white racism (the claim that white solipsistic and possibly white privileged ethical claims are imperialistically or insensitively universalized over less privileged human lives). This plays out in the dreaded comparison of animals with people of color and Jews as exemplified in the PETA campaign and the need for human identification (or solidarity) with animals in ethical vegetarianism. (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Christiane Bailey & Chloë Taylor (2013). Editor's Introduction. Phaenex. Journal of Existential and Phenomenological Theory and Culture 8 (2):i-xv.
    Christiane Bailey and Chloë Taylor (Editorial Introduction) Sue Donaldson (Stirring the Pot - A short play in six scenes) Ralph Acampora (La diversification de la recherche en éthique animale et en études animales) Eva Giraud (Veganism as Affirmative Biopolitics: Moving Towards a Posthumanist Ethics?) Leonard Lawlor (The Flipside of Violence, or Beyond the Thought of Good Enough) Kelly Struthers Montford (The “Present Referent”: Nonhuman Animal Sacrifice and the Constitution of Dominant Albertan Identity) James Stanescu (Beyond Biopolitics: Animal Studies, Factory Farms, (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Robert Bass, The Benefit of Regan's Doubt.
    Regan appeals to the benefit of the doubt as a reason to include some animals within the scope of his arguments about the rights of animals. I think the informal appeal to the benefit of the doubt can be fleshed out and made more compelling. What I shall do differs from his project, however. It is narrower in scope, because I shall focus on a single issue, the dietary use of animals. On another dimension, though, I aim to do more. (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Robert Bass (2011). Moral Lore and the Ethics of Eating. Think 10 (29):83-90.
    Your mother was wise to teach you that just because everybody’s doing it, that doesn’t make it right. She would have been wise to add that just because everybody thinks it, that doesn’t make it right, either. On the other hand, she would not have been wise to add (and probably did not) that when everybody agrees, that is no evidence whatsoever. When nearly everybody believes something, that’s a reason in its favor. . . . I shall look at a (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Robert Bass (2005). Without a Tear: Our Tragic Relationship with Animals. [REVIEW] Journal of Value Inquiry 39 (2):273-277.
    Since Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation, many philosophers have addressed the ethics of our relations with other animals with skill and insight. By and large, they have argued that something is badly wrong and therefore in need of radical reform, though there have been dissenters, like Peter Carruthers, in The Animals Issue. One feature many such works have had in common is the reliance of their authors upon contentious theoretical stances. There have been utilitarian, Kantian, and contractarian arguments, with theses and (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Volkert Beekman (2000). You Are What You Eat: Meat, Novel Protein Foods, and Consumptive Freedom. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12 (2):185-196.
    Animal husbandry has been accused ofmaltreating animals, polluting the environment, and soon. These accusations were thought to be answered whenthe Dutch research program ``Sustainable TechnologicalDevelopment'' (STD) suggested a government-initiatedconversion from meat to novel protein foods (NPFs).STD reasoned that if consumers converted from meat toNPFs, non-sustainable animal husbandry would no longerbe needed. Whereas STD only worried about how toconstruct NPFs with a meat bite, this paper drawsattention to the presumed, but problematic, role forthe government in the execution of the STDsuggestions. Although (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. David Boonin (2002). Animal, Vegetable, or Woman?: A Feminist Critique of Ethical Vegetarianism. Environmental Ethics 24 (4):429-432.
  11. Matthew Calarco (2004). Deconstruction is Not Vegetarianism: Humanism, Subjectivity, and Animal Ethics. Continental Philosophy Review 37 (2):175-201.
    This essay examines Jacques Derrida’s contribution to recent debates in animal philosophy in order to explore the critical promise of his work for contemporary discourses on animal ethics and vegetarianism. The essay is divided into two sections, both of which have as their focus Derrida’s interview with Jean-Luc Nancy entitled “‘Eating Well’, or the Calculation of the Subject.” My task in the initial section is to assess the claim made by Derrida in this interview that Levinas’s work is dogmatically anthropocentric, (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Ross Cameron, The Unjustified-Suffering Argument for Vegetarianism.
    A major argument for vegetarianism is that eating animals causes unjustified suffering. While this argument has been articulated by several people, it has received surprisingly little attention. Here I restate it in a way that I believe is most convincing, considering and rejecting the two main justifications for causing suffering in order to eat animals. I compare it to some other prominent arguments for vegetarianism, and discuss a major objection to the argument which focuses on whether the animals would not (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Aaron Champene & Don Merrell (2008). The Causal Impotency Objection to Vegetarianism. Southwest Philosophy Review 24 (1):53-60.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Andrew Chignell, Terence Cuneo & Matthew Halteman (2015). Philosophy Comes to Dinner: Arguments on the Ethics of Eating. Routledge.
    First published in 2014. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Christopher Ciocchetti (2012). Veganism and Living Well. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (3):405-417.
    I argue that many philosophical arguments for veganism underestimate what is at stake for humans who give up eating animal products. By saying all that’s at stake for humans is taste and characterizing taste in simplistic terms, they underestimate the reasonable resistance that arguments for veganism will meet. Taste, they believe, is trivial. Omnivores, particular those that I label meaningful omnivores, disagree. They believe that eating meat provides a more meaningful meal, though just how this works proves elusive. Meaningful omnivores (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Simon Clarke, The Unjustified-Suffering Argument for Vegetarianism.
    A major argument for vegetarianism is that eating animals causes unjustified suffering. While this argument has been articulated by several people, it has received surprisingly little attention. Here I restate it in a way that I believe is most convincing, considering and rejecting the two main justifications for causing suffering in order to eat animals. I compare it to some other prominent arguments for vegetarianism, and discuss a major objection to the argument which focuses on whether the animals would not (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Christopher Cowley (2005). Changing One's Mind on Moral Matters. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 8 (3):277 - 290.
    Contemporary moral philosophy assumes an account of what it means to legitimately change one’s mind in ethics, and I wish to challenge this account by enlarging the category of the legitimate. I am just as eager to avoid illegitimate mind-changing brought on by deceit or brainwashing, but I claim that legitimacy should be defined in terms of transparency of method. A social reformer should not be embarrassed to admit that he acquired many beliefs about justice while reading Dickens. As such, (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Roger Crisp (1988). Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 4 (1):41-49.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Steven L. Davis (2003). The Least Harm Principle May Require That Humans Consume a Diet Containing Large Herbivores, Not a Vegan Diet. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16 (4):387-394.
    Based on his theory of animalrights, Regan concludes that humans are morallyobligated to consume a vegetarian or vegandiet. When it was pointed out to him that evena vegan diet results in the loss of manyanimals of the field, he said that while thatmay be true, we are still obligated to consumea vegetarian/vegan diet because in total itwould cause the least harm to animals (LeastHarm Principle, or LHP) as compared to currentagriculture. But is that conclusion valid? Isit possible that some other (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Jan Deckers (2009). Vegetarianism, Sentimental or Ethical? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (6):573-597.
    In this paper, I provide some evidence for the view that a common charge against those who adopt vegetarianism is that they would be sentimental. I argue that this charge is pressed frequently by those who adopt moral absolutism, a position that I reject, before exploring the question if vegetarianism might make sense. I discuss three concerns that might motivate those who adopt vegetarian diets, including a concern with the human health and environmental costs of some alternative diets, a concern (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. David DeGrazia (2009). Moral Vegetarianism From a Very Broad Basis. Journal of Moral Philosophy 6 (2):143-165.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Philip E. Devine (1978). The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism. Philosophy 53 (206):481 - 505.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. S. M. Easton (1985). Rights, Killing, and Suffering: Moral Vegetarianism and Applied Ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 11 (1):51-52.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Dan Egonsson (1997). Kant's Vegetarianism. Journal of Value Inquiry 31 (4):473-483.
  25. Matthew Elton (2000). Should Vegetarians Play Video Games? Philosophical Papers 29 (1):21-42.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Ron Epstein, Genetic Engineering: A Major Threat to Vegetarians.
    Imagine a world in which as part of their basic substances tomatoes contain fish and tobacco, potatoes contain chicken, moths and other insects, and corn contains fireflies. Is this science-fiction? No, these plant-animal hybrids already exist today and may soon be on your supermarket shelves without any special labeling to warn you. Furthermore, in a few years the types of these genetically engineered "vegetables" are sure to increase and may very possibly also include human genes. If you are a vegetarian, (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Frederick Ferré (1986). Moderation, Morals, and Meat. Inquiry 29 (1-4):391 – 406.
    Meat-eating as a human practice has been under ethical attack from philosophers such as Peter Singer and Tom Regan on both utilitarian and deontological grounds. An organicist ethic, on the other hand, recognizes that all life other than the primary producers, the plants, must feed on life. This essay affirms, with many environmental ethicists, the moralconsiderability of biota other than the human, but denies that this enlargement of the moral community beyond Homo sapiens necessarily precludes our eating of meat. First, (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Bob Fischer (forthcoming). Against Blaming the Blameworthy. In Ben Bramble & Bob Fischer (eds.), Stirring the Pot: The Moral Complexities of Meat-eating. Oxford University Press.
    We tend not to blame those who eat meat--even if they are blameworthy for so doing. Some think that this is a moral failure on the part of vegetarians and vegans. My aim here, however, is to argue that this isn't so. In short, I argue that if it would be unreasonable to demand that someone behave in a particular way, then we shouldn’t blame her for failing to behave in that way. But it would be unreasonable to demand that (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Robert William Fischer (forthcoming). Meat: Ethical Considerations. In Paul B. Thompson & David M. Kaplan (eds.), Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics. Springer.
    Meat-eating has been the norm in most human societies. Historically, it has not had many defenders, but this is probably because few thought that it was in need of defense. In the contemporary philosophical literature, however, the pro-vegetarian arguments are usually taken to be quite strong, and omnivores have assumed the burden of proof. The purpose of this entry is to explain this shift by surveying the various frameworks that offer neutral or positive moral assessments of meat-eating. After briefly tracing (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. M. Fox (2000). Vegetarianism and Planetary Health. Ethics and the Environment 5 (2):163-174.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Danny Frederick, Why It is Ethical to Eat Meat.
    One-page summary of the case for why it is not wrong to eat meat.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Jeremy R. Garrett (2007). Utilitarianism, Vegetarianism, and Human Health: A Response to the Causal Impotence Objection. Journal of Applied Philosophy 24 (3):223–237.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Kathryn Paxton George (2002). Book Review: Kerry S. Walters and Lisa Portmess. Ethical Vegetarianism: From Pythagoras to Peter Singer. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999. [REVIEW] Hypatia 17 (1):203-205.
  34. Kathryn Paxton George (1994). Use and Abuse Revisited: Response to Pluhar and Varner. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):41-76.
    In her recent Counter-Reply to my views, Evelyn Pluhar defends her use of literature on nutrition and restates her argument for moral vegetarianism. In his Vegan Ideal article, Gary Varner claims that the nutrition literature does not show sufficient differences among women, men, and children to warrant concern about discrimination. In this response I show how Professor Pluhar continues to draw fallacious inferences: she begs the question on equality, avoids the main issue in my ethical arguments, argues from irrelevancies, misquotes (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Kathryn Paxton George (1994). Discrimination and Bias in the Vegan Ideal. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):19-28.
    The vegan ideal is entailed by arguments for ethical veganism based on traditional moral theory (rights and/or utilitarianism) extended to animals. The most ideal lifestyle would abjure the use of animals or their products for food since animals suffer and have rights not to be killed. The ideal is discriminatory because the arguments presuppose a male physiological norm that gives a privileged position to adult, middle-class males living in industrialized countries. Women, children, the aged, and others have substantially different nutritional (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Kathryn Paxton George (1992). The Use and Abuse of Scientific Studies. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 5 (2):217-233.
    In response to Evelyn Pluhar'sWho Can Be Morally Obligated to Be a Vegetarian? in this journal issue, the author has read all of Pluhar's citations for the accuracy of her claims and had these read by an independent nutritionist. Detailed analysis of Pluhar's argument shows that she attempts to make her case by consistent misappropriation of the findings and conclusions of the studies she cites. Pluhar makes sweeping generalizations from scanty data, ignores causal explanations given by scientists, equates hypothesis with (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Kathryn Paxton George (1990). So Animal a Human ..., Or the Moral Relevance of Being an Omnivore. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 3 (2):172-186.
    It is argued that the question of whether or not one is required to be or become a strict vegetarian depends, not upon a rule or ideal that endorses vegetarianism on moral grounds, but rather upon whether one's own physical, biological nature is adapted to maintaining health and well-being on a vegetarian diet. Even if we accept the view that animals have rights, we still have no duty to make ourselves substantially worse off for the sake of other rights-holders. Moreover, (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Sara Goering (2001). Michael Allen Fox, Deep Vegetarianism:Deep Vegetarianism. Ethics 111 (3):632-634.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Alexander A. Guerrero (2007). Don't Know, Don't Kill: Moral Ignorance, Culpability, and Caution. [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 136 (1):59-97.
    This paper takes on several distinct but related tasks. First, I present and discuss what I will call the “Ignorance Thesis,” which states that whenever an agent acts from ignorance, whether factual or moral, she is culpable for the act only if she is culpable for the ignorance from which she acts. Second, I offer a counterexample to the Ignorance Thesis, an example that applies most directly to the part I call the “Moral Ignorance Thesis.” Third, I argue for a (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Laura K. Hahn (2010). I'm Too Sexy for Your Movement : An Analysis of the Failure of the Animal Rights Movement to Promote Vegetarianism. In Greg Goodale & Jason Edward Black (eds.), Arguments About Animal Ethics. Lexington Books.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Benjamin Hale (2008). Do Animals Have Rights? – Alison Hills. [REVIEW] Philosophical Quarterly 58 (231):379–382.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Benjamin Hale (2007). Gavagai Goulash: Growing Organs for Food. Think 17 (15):61-70.
    Recent advancements in stem-cell research have given scientists hope that new technologies will soon enable them to grow a variety of organs for transplantation into humans. Though such developments are still in their early stages, romantic prognosticators are hopeful that scientists will be capable of growing fully functioning and complex organs, such as hearts, kidneys, muscles, and livers. This raises the question of whether such profound medical developments might have other potentially fruitful applications. In the spirit of innovation, this paper (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Benjamin Hale (2004). What We Want Animals to Want. [REVIEW] American Journal of Bioethics 4 (4):83-85.
  44. Matthew C. Halteman (2013). Knowing the Standard American Diet By Its Fruits: Is Unrestrained Omnivorism Spiritually Beneficial? Interpretation 67 (4):383-395.
    My aim in this article is to challenge the standard North American diet’s (SAD) default status in church and among North American Christians generally. First, I explain what is at stake in my guiding question—“Is unrestrained omnivorism as typified by SAD spiritually beneficial?”—and then I attempt to allay some common skeptical concerns about the suitability of food ethics as a topic for serious Christian discernment. Second, I develop a prima facie case that SAD is not spiritually beneficial, drawing on five (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Matthew C. Halteman, Living Toward the Peaceable Kingdom: Compassionate Eating as Care of Creation. Humane Society of the United States Animals and Religion.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. R. M. Hare (1993). Essays on Bioethics. Oxford University Press.
    R.M. Hare is well known both for his fundamental work in ethical theory and for his applications of it to practical issues. For this volume he has selected the best of his writings on medical ethics and related topics. The book's chief theoretical interest lies in its synthesis between utilitarian and Kantian ethics, which are shown to have the same practical consequences. The main practical thesis in the book is that we can harm possible people by preventing them from becoming (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Jonathan Harrison (2008). The Vagaries of Vegetarianism. Ratio 21 (3):286-299.
    The following was meant to be a 'fun paper', which the author's honesty and natural seriousness of mind prevented from coming off well. Its main theme is that it is not wrong to eat meat provided the animals eaten are painlessly killed or – usually in the case of human animals – already dead. In the course of his remarks the author touches on: the bearing of affluence on vegetarianism; animal rights; child eating; treating animals as ends and with due (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Frank J. Hoffman (2000). “Asoka”. In William M. Johnston (ed.), Encyclopedia of Monasticism. Fitzroy Dearborn.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Frank J. Hoffman (1998). “Gandhi”. In Edward Craig (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Patrick D. Hopkins & Austin Dacey (2008). Vegetarian Meat: Could Technology Save Animals and Satisfy Meat Eaters? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (6):579-596.
    Between people who unabashedly support eating meat and those who adopt moral vegetarianism, lie a number of people who are uncomfortably carnivorous and vaguely wish they could be vegetarians. Opposing animal suffering in principle, they can ignore it in practice, relying on the visual disconnect between supermarket meat and slaughterhouse practices not to trigger their moral emotions. But what if we could have the best of both worlds in reality—eat meat and not harm animals? The nascent biotechnology of tissue culture, (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 98