Graduate studies at Western
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (3):405-417 (2012)
|Abstract||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 could find little in the philosophical literature to help them clarify and support their position until recently. A few philosophers have argued that our culinary practices involve something more significant than taste. I categorize these arguments into three kinds. They either argue that culinary practices are a form of artistic achievement, that our diet forms part of our identity, or that a specific diet facilitates honest engagement with the world. Each of these arguments connects some aspect of our culinary practices to living a meaningful life. I examine each argument to see if it can defend the meaningful omnivore’s position. In the end, I conclude that it cannot. Nonetheless, this argument has significant implications for the animal welfare movement. Given the intense suffering caused by contemporary animal agriculture, concern for meaning is not sufficient to justify eating meat and often dairy. Concern for meaning does, however, require that we look for ways to preserve and extend culinary traditions while making them more humane.|
|Keywords||Vegetarianism Fine arts Aesthetics Identity Nature|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Brooke Alan Trisel (2007). Judging Life and Its Value. Sorites (18):60-75.
Krzysztof Saja (2013). The Moral Footprint of Animal Products. Agriculture and Human Values 30 (2):193–202.
Matthew C. Halteman, Living Toward the Peaceable Kingdom: Compassionate Eating as Care of Creation. Humane Society of the United States Animals and Religion.
Frederick Ferré (1986). Moderation, Morals, and Meat. Inquiry 29 (1-4):391 – 406.
Frederick Ferré (1986). Moderation, Morals, and Meat. Inquiry 29 (1-4):391-406.
Andy Lamey (2007). Food Fight! Davis Versus Regan on the Ethics of Eating Beef. Journal of Social Philosophy 38 (2):331–348.
David Detmer (2007). Vegetarianism, Traditional Morality, and Moral Conservatism. Journal of Philosophical Research 32 (Supplement):39-48.
Gregory R. Peterson (2013). Is Eating Locally a Moral Obligation? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26 (2):421-437.
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.
Matthew J. Brown (2007). Picky Eating is a Moral Failing. In Dave Monroe & Fritz Allhoff (eds.), Food & Philosophy: Eat, Think, and Be Merry. Blackwell.
Richard Hanley (2004). A Modest Proposal. Public Affairs Quarterly 18.
Katherine Wayne (2013). Permissible Use and Interdependence: Against Principled Veganism. Journal of Applied Philosophy 30 (2):160-175.
Joel Marks (2010). Innocent and Innocuous: The Case Against Animal Research. Between the Species (10):98-117.
Thaddeus Metz (2012). The Meaningful and the Worthwhile: Clarifying the Relationships. Philosophical Forum 43 (4):435-448.
Kathryn Paxton George (1994). Discrimination and Bias in the Vegan Ideal. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):19-28.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads47 ( #27,549 of 749,976 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #26,844 of 749,976 )
How can I increase my downloads?