Related categories
Siblings:
184 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 50 / 184
  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. Peter Alward (2000). The Naïve Argument Against Moral Vegetarianism. Environmental Values 9 (1):81 - 89.
    The naïve argument against moral vegetarianism claims that if it is wrong for us to eat meant then it is wrong for lions and tigers to do so as well. I argue that the fact that such carnivores lack higher order mental states and need meat to survive do suffice to undermine the naive argument.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. A. T. Anchustegui (2005). Biocentric Ethics and Animal Prosperity. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 19 (1):105-119.
    Singer’s utilitarian and Regan’s deontological views must be rejected because: (1) they rely on criteria for moral standing that can only be known a priori and (2) if these criteria were successful, they’d be too restrictive. I hold that while mental properties may be sufficient for moral standing, they are not necessary. (3) Their criteria of moral standing do not unambiguously abrogate needless harm to animals. I defend a theory of biocentric individualism that upholds the principle of species egalitarianism while (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. 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  
  6. Julian Baggini (2002). Eating Words. The Philosophers' Magazine 20:3-3.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. 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  
  8. 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  
  9. 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  
  10. 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  
  11. 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  
  12. 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  
  13. David Benatar (2001). Why the Naïve Argument Against Moral Vegetarianism Really is Naïve. Environmental Values 10 (1):103 - 112.
    When presented with the claim of the moral vegetarian that it is wrong for us to eat meat, many people respond that because it is not wrong for lions, tigers and other carnivores to kill and eat animals, it cannot be wrong for humans to do so. This response is what Peter Alward has called the naive argument. Peter Alward has defended the naive argument against objections. I argue that his defence fails.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Nora Berend (2000). Tender Meat Under the Saddle: Customs of Eating, Drinking and Hospitality Among Conquering Hungarians and Nomadic Peoples. [REVIEW] The Medieval Review 2.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Terry Bisson (2000). They're Made Out of Meat. Free Inquiry 20.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Ben Bramble Bob Fischer (ed.) (forthcoming). The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat. Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. David Boonin (2002). Animal, Vegetable, or Woman?: A Feminist Critique of Ethical Vegetarianism. Environmental Ethics 24 (4):429-432.
  18. Ben Bramble (forthcoming). The Case Against Meat. In Ben Bramble Bob Fischer (ed.), The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat. Oxford University Press.
    There is a simple but powerful argument against the human practice of raising and killing animals for food (RKF for short). It goes like this: 1. RKF is extremely bad for animals. 2. RKF is only trivially good for human beings Therefore, 3. RKF should be stopped. While many consider this argument decisive, not everyone is convinced. There have been four main lines of objection to it. In this paper, I provide new responses to these four objections.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Ben Bramble & Bob Fischer (eds.) (forthcoming). The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat. Oxford University Press.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Mark Braunstein (1985). On Becoming Vegetarian. Between the Species 1 (4):11.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. 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  
  22. 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  
  23. 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  
  24. 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  
  25. Robert Magneson Chiles (2013). If They Come, We Will Build It: In Vitro Meat and the Discursive Struggle Over Future Agrofood Expectations. Agriculture and Human Values 30 (4):511-523.
    According to recent literature in the sociology of expectations, expectations about the future are “performative” in that they provide guidance for activities, attract attention, mobilize political and economic resources, coordinate between groups, link technical and social concerns, create visions, and enroll supporters. While this framework has blossomed over the past decade in science and technology studies, it has yet to be applied towards a more refined understanding of how the future of the modern agrofood system is being actively contested and (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. 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  
  27. 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  
  28. Grace Clement (2011). “Pets or Meat”? Ethics and Domestic Animals. Journal of Animal Ethics 1 (1):46-57.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. 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  
  30. Stephanie Cram (2011). Fetishized Meat: Asserting Power Over Animals. Gnosis 10 (3):1-8.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. 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  
  32. 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  
  33. 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 (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. D. DeGrazia (2008). Meat-Eating. In Susan J. Armstrong & Richard George Botzler (eds.), The Animal Ethics Reader. Routledge. 219--224.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. David DeGrazia (2009). Moral Vegetarianism From a Very Broad Basis. Journal of Moral Philosophy 6 (2):143-165.
    This paper defends a qualified version of moral vegetarianism. It defends a weak thesis and, more tentatively, a strong thesis, both from a very broad basis that assumes neither that animals have rights nor that they are entitled to equal consideration. The essay's only assumption about moral status, an assumption defended in the analysis of the wrongness of cruelty to animals, is that sentient animals have at least some moral status. One need not be a strong champion of animal protection, (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. David Detmer (2007). Vegetarianism, Traditional Morality, and Moral Conservatism. Journal of Philosophical Research 32 (Supplement):39-48.
    “Moral vegetarianism,” the doctrine that it is immoral to eat meat, is widely dismissed as eccentric. But I argue that moral vegetarianism is thoroughly conservative—it follows directly from two basic moral principles that nearly everyone already accepts. One is that it is morally wrong to cause unnecessary pain. The other is that if it is wrong in one case to do X, then it will also be wrong to do so in another, unless the two cases differ in some morally (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. 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  
  38. Philip E. Devine (1978). The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism: Philip E. Devine. Philosophy 53 (206):481-505.
    If someone abstains from meat-eating for reasons of taste or personal economics, no moral or philosophical question arises. But when a vegetarian attempts to persuade others that they, too, should adopt his diet, then what he says requires philosophical attention. While a vegetarian might argue in any number of ways, this essay will be concerned only with the argument for a vegetarian diet resting on a moral objection to the rearing and killing of animals for the human table. The vegetarian, (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Cora Diamond (1978). Eating Meat and Eating People. Philosophy 53 (206):465 - 479.
    This paper is a response to a certain sort of argument defending the rights of animals. Part I is a brief explanation of the background and of the sort of argument I want to reject; Part II is an attempt to characterize those arguments: they contain fundamental confusions about moral relations between people and people and between people and animals. And Part III is an indication of what I think can still be said on—as it were–the animals' side.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Tasmin Dilworth & Andrew McGregor (2015). Moral Steaks? Ethical Discourses of In Vitro Meat in Academia and Australia. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (1):85-107.
    The profile and possibilities of in vitro meat are rapidly expanding, creating new ethical conundrums about how to approach this nascent biotechnology. The outcomes of these ethical debates will shape the future viability of this technology and its acceptability for potential consumers. In this paper we focus on how in vitro meat is being ethically constructed in academic literatures and contrast this with discourses evident in the mainstream print media. The academic literature is analysed to identify a typology of ethical (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Larissa S. Drescher, Janneke de Jonge, Ellen Goddard & Thomas Herzfeld (2012). Consumer's Stated Trust in the Food Industry and Meat Purchases. Agriculture and Human Values 29 (4):507-517.
    Research indicates that consumers are particularly concerned about the safety of meat. More highly processed meat is perceived as more unsafe than fresh or natural meats, i.e., consumers trust processed meat less. This paper studies the relationship between perceived trust and day-to-day purchase behavior for meat, giving special attention to the degree of meat processing. Controlling for trust in food chain actors and demographic and socio-economic variables, actual meat purchases of Canadian households are linked to answers from a commissioned food (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Christian Ducrot, Mathilde Paul & Didier Calavas (2013). BSE Risk and the Use of Meat and Bone Meal in the Feed Industry: Perspectives in the Context of Relaxing Control Measures. Natures Sciences Sociétés 21 (1):3-12.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Antoine C. Dussault & Élise Desaulniers (forthcoming). Natural Food. In Paul B. Thompson & David M. Kaplan (eds.), Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics. Springer.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Johanna Dwyer & Franklin M. Loew (1994). Nutritional Risks of Vegan Diets to Women and Children: Are They Preventable? [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):87-109.
    The potential health risks of vegan diets specifically for women and children are discussed. Women and children are at higher risk of malnutrition from consumption of unsupplemented vegan diets than are adult males. Those who are very young, pregnant, lactating, elderly, or who suffer from poverty, disease or other environmentally induced disadvantages are at special risk. The size of these risks is difficult to quantify from existing studies. Fortunately the risk of dietary deficiency disease can be avoided and the potential (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. 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  
  46. Sachi Edwards (2013). Living in a Minority Food Culture: A Phenomenological Investigation of Being Vegetarian/Vegan. Phenomenology and Practice 7 (1):111-125.
    This phenomenological investigation aims to explore the lived experience of being vegan or vegetarian in a society and culture that is primarily non-vegetarian. As members of a unique minority group, vegans and vegetarians can sometimes be misunderstood by non-vegetarians and stereotyped as judgmental or difficult to deal with. Living with this type of misunderstanding from others can lead to feelings such as worry, loneliness, and fear. As such, the use of phenomenological inquiry is well suited to uncover the lived experience (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Dan Egonsson (1997). Kant's Vegetarianism. Journal of Value Inquiry 31 (4):473-483.
  48. 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  
  49. 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  
  50. Timothy Eves (2005). Plato's Vegetarian Utopia. Between the Species 13 (5):2.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 184