David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Social Theory and Practice 28 (1):135-156 (2002)
"Nobis argues that Singer's consequentialist approach is inadequate for defending the moral obligation to become a vegetarian or vegan. The consequentialist case rests on the idea that being a vegetarian or vegan maximizes utility -- the fewer animals that are raised and killed for food, the less suffering. Nobis argues that this argument does not work on an individual level -- my becoming a vegetarian makes no difference to the overall utility of reducing animal suffering in a context of a huge industry and market unaffected by my actions. Nobis merges the insights of virtue ethics with consequentialism to argue that individuals can bring about more goodness if they have the virtues of compassion, care, and sensitivity to unnecessary cruelty and suffering. If one ought to be compassionate, sensitive to cruelty, resist injustice, and be morally integrated, then, Nobis argues, one ought to be a vegetarian or vegan.".
|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
Ramona Cristina Ilea (2009). Intensive Livestock Farming: Global Trends, Increased Environmental Concerns, and Ethical Solutions. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (2):153-167.
James Garvey (2011). Climate Change and Causal Inefficacy: Why Go Green When It Makes No Difference? Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 69:157-174.
Julia Tanner (2015). Clarifying the Concept of Cruelty: What Makes Cruelty to Animals Cruel. Heythrop Journal 56 (5):818-835.
Cheryl Abbate (2014). Virtues and Animals: A Minimally Decent Ethic for Practical Living in a Non-Ideal World. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (6):1-23.
Similar books and articles
Kathryn Paxton George (1994). Discrimination and Bias in the Vegan Ideal. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):19-28.
Nathan Nobis (2002). Vegetarianism and Virtue. Social Theory and Practice 28 (1):135-156.
Ben Almassi (2011). The Consequences of Individual Consumption: A Defence of Threshold Arguments for Vegetarianism and Consumer Ethics. Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (4):396-411.
Andy Lamey (2007). Food Fight! Davis Versus Regan on the Ethics of Eating Beef. Journal of Social Philosophy 38 (2):331–348.
Jan Deckers (2009). Vegetarianism, Sentimental or Ethical? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (6):573-597.
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.
Julia Driver (2001). Uneasy Virtue. Cambridge University Press.
Nathan Nobis, Review of Putting Humans First: Why We Are Nature's Favorite by Tibor Machan. [REVIEW]
Kathryn Paxton George (1992). The Use and Abuse of Scientific Studies. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 5 (2):217-233.
Ben Bradley (2005). Virtue Consequentialism. Utilitas 17 (3):282-298.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads79 ( #42,746 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #289,836 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?