David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
International Journal of Applied Philosophy 16 (1):125-131 (2002)
In his critique of a common argument in favor of vegetarianism, Holmes Rolston III does not sufficiently address the nutritional factor. The nutritional factor is the important fact that the eating of animals is not nutritionally required to sustain human life. Also, although Rolston’s criterion for distinguishing when to model human conduct on animal conduct is defensible, he applies it inconsistently. One reason for this inconsistency is that Rolston misplaces the line he attempts to draw between culture and nature. Although he himself makes a distinction between culture and nature Rolston fails to recognize that the nutritional “need” to eat meat is a cultural creation, not a natural event. For these reasons, Rolston’s defense of eating animals as a purported way of respected ecology is severely impaired
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Paul Veatch Moriarty & Mark Woods (1997). Hunting ≠ Predation. Environmental Ethics 19 (4):391-404.
Ned Hettinger (1994). Valuing Predation in Rolston's Environmental Ethics: Bambi Lovers Versus Tree Huggers. Environmental Ethics 16 (1):3-20.
Christopher J. Preston (1998). Epistemology and Intrinsic Values: Norton and Callicott's Critiques of Rolston. Environmental Ethics 20 (4):409-428.
Katie McShane (2007). Rolston's Theory of Value. In Christopher J. Preston and Wayne Ouderkirk (ed.), Nature, Value, Duty: Life on Earth with Holmes Rolston, III. Springer
Francisco Benzoni (1996). Rolston's Theological Ethic. Environmental Ethics 18 (4):339-352.
Wayne Ouderkirk (1999). Can Nature Be Evil?: Rolston, Disvalue, and Theodicy. Environmental Ethics 21 (2):135-150.
Judith N. Scoville (1995). Value Theory and Ecology in Environmental Ethics: A Comparison of Rolston and Niebuhr. Environmental Ethics 17 (2):115-133.
Nathan Kowalsky (2006). Following Human Nature. Environmental Ethics 28 (2):165-183.
Jonathan Harrison (2008). The Vagaries of Vegetarianism. Ratio 21 (3):286-299.
Theodore W. Nunez (1999). Rolston, Lonergan, and the Intrinsic Value of Nature. Journal of Religious Ethics 27 (1):105 - 128.
J. Baird Callicott (1992). Rolston on Intrinsic Value. Environmental Ethics 14 (2):129-143.
J. Baird Callicot (1992). Rolston on Intrinsic Value: A Deconstruction. Environmental Ethics 14 (2):129-143.
Leon Kass (1994). The Hungry Soul: Eating and the Perfecting of Our Nature. University of Chicago Press.
Krzysztof Saja (2013). The Moral Footprint of Animal Products. Agriculture and Human Values 30 (2):193–202.
Philip J. Ivanhoe (2010). Of Geese and Eggs. Environmental Ethics 32 (1):67-78.
Added to index2011-01-09
Total downloads31 ( #135,211 of 1,934,422 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #66,302 of 1,934,422 )
How can I increase my downloads?