Food fight! Davis versus Regan on the ethics of eating beef
Journal of Social Philosophy 38 (2):331–348 (2007)
| Abstract | 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 of animal harm, that done to field animals in crop production. Yet while Davis's argument is ingenious and thought-provoking, it is not a successful challenge to vegetarianism and veganism's status as the diets that most advance animal rights. Scientific studies of crop production that Davis draws on document two different forms of harm done to field animals: those that are directly killed by harvesting equipment and those that are killed by other animals. Once this distinction is made explicit, the degree to which such studies pose a problem for animal protection theory considerably weakens. Davis also overlooks philosophically significant forms of harm to human beings that are present in beef production but not crop harvesting. Finally, he bases his argument on the controversial assumption that there is no difference between deliberate and accidental killing - either of animals or people. Although these problems defeat Davis's attempt to offer an immanent critique of Regan's animal rights position, his analysis does have important dietary ramifications that animal advocates should take into account. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,882 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesDavid J. Mellor (2009). The Sciences of Animal Welfare. Wiley-Blackwell.
Mark Rowlands (1998). Animal Rights: A Philosophical Defence. St. Martin's Press.
Tom Regan (2009). The Case for Animal Rights. In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Exploring Ethics: An Introductory Anthology. Oxford University Press.
Elisa Aaltola (2010). The Anthropocentric Paradigm and the Posibility of Animal Ethics. Ethics and the Environment 15 (1):pp. 27-50.
Kelly Oliver (2010). Animal Ethics: Toward an Ethics of Responsiveness. Research in Phenomenology 40 (2):267-280.
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.
Mark Rowlands (2009). Animal Rights: Moral Theory and Practice. Palgrave Macmillan.
Claire Molloy (2011). Popular Media and Animals. Palgrave Macmillan.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads58 ( #17,289 of 556,909 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #39,122 of 556,909 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
