15 found
Sort by:
  1. Kathryn Paxton George (2008). A Paradox of Ethical Vegetarianism Unfairness to Women and Children. In Susan J. Armstrong & Richard George Botzler (eds.), The Animal Ethics Reader. Routledge.
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Kathryn Paxton George (2002). Ethical Vegetarianism: From Pythagoras to Peter Singer (Review). Hypatia 17 (1):203-205.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Kathryn Paxton George (2002). Book Review: Kerry S. Walters and Lisa Portmess. Ethical Vegetarianism: From Pythagoras to Peter Singer. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999. [REVIEW] Hypatia 17 (1):203-205.
  4. Kathryn Paxton George (2001). Fischer, Frank, Citizens, Experts, and the Environment. The Politics of Local Knowledge. Duke University Press, 2000. 298+ Pp. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14:253-254.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Kathryn Paxton George (2000). Animal, Vegetable, or Woman?: A Feminist Critique of Ethical Vegetarianism. State University of New York Press.
    Challenges current claims that humans ought to be vegetarians because animals have moral standing.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Kathryn Paxton George (1994). Discrimination and Bias in the Vegan Ideal. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):19-28.
    The vegan ideal is entailed by arguments for ethical veganism based on traditional moral theory (rights and/or utilitarianism) extended to animals. The most ideal lifestyle would abjure the use of animals or their products for food since animals suffer and have rights not to be killed. The ideal is discriminatory because the arguments presuppose a male physiological norm that gives a privileged position to adult, middle-class males living in industrialized countries. Women, children, the aged, and others have substantially different nutritional (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Kathryn Paxton George (1994). Use and Abuse Revisited: Response to Pluhar and Varner. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):41-76.
    In her recent Counter-Reply to my views, Evelyn Pluhar defends her use of literature on nutrition and restates her argument for moral vegetarianism. In his Vegan Ideal article, Gary Varner claims that the nutrition literature does not show sufficient differences among women, men, and children to warrant concern about discrimination. In this response I show how Professor Pluhar continues to draw fallacious inferences: she begs the question on equality, avoids the main issue in my ethical arguments, argues from irrelevancies, misquotes (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Peter Hartel, Kathryn Paxton George & James Vorst (eds.) (1994). Agricultural Ethics: Issues for the 21st Century: Proceedings of a Symposium Sponsored by the Soil Science Society of America, American Society of Agronomy, and the Crop Science Society of America in Minneapolis, Mn, Oct. 31-Nov. 5, 1992. [REVIEW] Cssa.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Kathryn Paxton George (1992). Moral and Nonmoral Innate Constraints. Biology and Philosophy 7 (2):189-202.
    Charles J. Lumsden and E.O. Wilson, in their writings together and individually, have proposed that human behaviors, whether moral or nonmoral, are governed by innate constraints (which they have termed epigenetic rules). I propose that if a genetic component of moral behavior is to be discovered, some sorting out of specifically moral from nonmoral innate constraints will be necessary. That some specifically moral innate constraits exist is evidenced by virtuous behaviors exhibited in nonhuman mammals, whose behavior is usually granted to (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Kathryn Paxton George (1992). Sustainability and the Moral Community. Agriculture and Human Values 9 (4):48-57.
    Three views of sustainability are juxtaposed with four views about who the members of the moral community are. These provide points of contact for understanding the moral issues in sustainability. Attention is drawn to the preferred epistemic methods of the differing factions arguing for sustainability. Criteria for defining membership in the moral community are explored; rationality and capacity for pain are rejected as consistent criteria. The criterion of having interests is shown to be most coherent for explaining why all living (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Kathryn Paxton George (1992). The Use and Abuse of Scientific Studies. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 5 (2):217-233.
    In response to Evelyn Pluhar'sWho Can Be Morally Obligated to Be a Vegetarian? in this journal issue, the author has read all of Pluhar's citations for the accuracy of her claims and had these read by an independent nutritionist. Detailed analysis of Pluhar's argument shows that she attempts to make her case by consistent misappropriation of the findings and conclusions of the studies she cites. Pluhar makes sweeping generalizations from scanty data, ignores causal explanations given by scientists, equates hypothesis with (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Kathryn Paxton George (1991). The Unheeded Cry. Teaching Philosophy 14 (4):483-487.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. 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.
    It is argued that the question of whether or not one is required to be or become a strict vegetarian depends, not upon a rule or ideal that endorses vegetarianism on moral grounds, but rather upon whether one's own physical, biological nature is adapted to maintaining health and well-being on a vegetarian diet. Even if we accept the view that animals have rights, we still have no duty to make ourselves substantially worse off for the sake of other rights-holders. Moreover, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Kathryn Paxton George (1988). Biodiversity and Biotechnology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1 (3):175-192.
    The maintenance of biodiversity is urged from many quarters and on grounds ranging from aesthetic considerations to its usefulness, particularly for biotechnology. But regardless of the grounds for preserving biodiversity, writers are generally in agreement that it should be preserved. But, in examining the various references biodiversity, such as species diversity, genetic diversity, and habitat diversity, it is apparent that we cannot aim to preserve biodiversityas such, since there are a number of conflicts in any such undertaking. In preserving one (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Kathryn Paxton George (1987). Individual Ethics and the Social Goals of Agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 4 (2-3):100-104.
    This article is a response to Paul Thompson's recent claim that individual farmers cannot have obligations to practice sustainable methods unless a large number of other producers also use them. Using a moral rights framework, I explain the relation of human interests and needs to the duties of individuals to accomplish moral social goals; i.e., those moral goals whose accomplishment requires the cooperation of other persons. The purpose is to show that individual action to promote sustainability does have moral value. (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation