Search results for 'Vegetarianism' (try it on Scholar)

208 found
Order:
See also:
Bibliography: Vegetarianism in Applied Ethics
  1. Jan Deckers (2009). Vegetarianism, Sentimental or Ethical? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (6):573-597.
    In this paper, I provide some evidence for the view that a common charge against those who adopt vegetarianism is that they would be sentimental. I argue that this charge is pressed frequently by those who adopt moral absolutism, a position that I reject, before exploring the question if vegetarianism might make sense. I discuss three concerns that might motivate those who adopt vegetarian diets, including a concern with the human health and environmental costs of some alternative diets, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  2. David DeGrazia (2009). Moral Vegetarianism From a Very Broad Basis. Journal of Moral Philosophy 6 (2):143-165.
    This paper defends a qualified version of moral vegetarianism. It defends a weak thesis and, more tentatively, a strong thesis, both from a very broad basis that assumes neither that animals have rights nor that they are entitled to equal consideration. The essay's only assumption about moral status, an assumption defended in the analysis of the wrongness of cruelty to animals, is that sentient animals have at least some moral status. One need not be a strong champion of animal (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  3. Evelyn B. Pluhar (1993). On Vegetarianism, Morality, and Science: A Counter Reply. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6 (2):185-213.
    I recently took issue with Kathryn George's contention that vegetarianism cannot be a moral obligation for most human beings, even assuming that Tom Regan's stringent thesis about the equal inherent value of humans and many sentient nonhumans is correct. I argued that both Regan and George are incorrect in claiming that his view would permit moral agents to kill and eat innocent, non-threatening rights holders. An unequal rights view, by contrast, would permit such actions if a moral agent's health (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  4.  43
    Evelyn Pluhar (1994). Vegetarianism, Morality, and Science Revisited. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):77-82.
    Professor Kathryn George's Use and Abuse Revisited does not contain an accurate assessment of my On Vegetarianism, Morality, and Science: A Counter Reply. I show that she has misrepresented my moral and empirical argumentation.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  5.  60
    Aaron Champene & Don A. Merrell (2008). The Causal Impotency Objection to Vegetarianism. Southwest Philosophy Review 24 (1):53-60.
    Alastair Norcross has argued that there is no morally relevant difference between a person who eats meat and a person who tortures puppies in order to enjoy a certain gustatory sensation. We offer an objection to his argument.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. Patrick Clipsham (2016). Andrew F. Smith, A Critique of the Moral Defense of Vegetarianism. Reviewed By. Philosophy in Review 36 (4):179-181.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. George Nicholson (1801). George Nicholson's on the Primeval Diet of Man (1801): Vegetarianism and Human Conduct Toward Animals. E. Mellen Press.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8.  6
    Mylan Engel, The Commonsense Case for Ethical Vegetarianism.
    The article defends ethical vegetarianism, which, for present purposes, is stipulatively taken to be the view that it is morally wrong to eat animals when equally nutritious plant-based foods are available. Several examples are introduced to show that we all agree that animals deserve some direct moral consideration and to help identify and clarify several commonsense moral principles—principles we all accept. These principles are then used to argue that eating animals is morally wrong. Since you no doubt accept these (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. 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.
    As a moral foundation for vegetarianism and other consumer choices, act consequentialism can be appealing. When we justify our consumer and dietary choices this way, however, we face the problem that our individual actions rarely actually precipitate more just agricultural and economic practices. This threshold or individual impotence problem engaged by consequentialist vegetarians and their critics extends to morally motivated consumer decision-making more generally, anywhere a lag persists between individual moral actions taken and systemic moral progress made. Regan and (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  10. Cathryn Bailey (2007). We Are What We Eat: Feminist Vegetarianism and the Reproduction of Racial Identity. Hypatia 22 (2):39-59.
    : In this article, Bailey analyzes the relationship between ethical vegetarianism (or the claim that ethical vegetarianism is morally right for all people) and white racism (the claim that white solipsistic and possibly white privileged ethical claims are imperialistically or insensitively universalized over less privileged human lives). This plays out in the dreaded comparison of animals with people of color and Jews as exemplified in the PETA campaign and the need for human identification (or solidarity) with animals in (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  11. Simon Clarke, The Unjustified-Suffering Argument for Vegetarianism.
    A major argument for vegetarianism is that eating animals causes unjustified suffering. While this argument has been articulated by several people, it has received surprisingly little attention. Here I restate it in a way that I believe is most convincing, considering and rejecting the two main justifications for causing suffering in order to eat animals. I compare it to some other prominent arguments for vegetarianism, and discuss a major objection to the argument which focuses on whether the animals (...)
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. Matthew Calarco (2004). Deconstruction is Not Vegetarianism: Humanism, Subjectivity, and Animal Ethics. Continental Philosophy Review 37 (2):175-201.
    This essay examines Jacques Derrida’s contribution to recent debates in animal philosophy in order to explore the critical promise of his work for contemporary discourses on animal ethics and vegetarianism. The essay is divided into two sections, both of which have as their focus Derrida’s interview with Jean-Luc Nancy entitled “‘Eating Well’, or the Calculation of the Subject.” My task in the initial section is to assess the claim made by Derrida in this interview that Levinas’s work is dogmatically (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13.  42
    Peter Alward (2000). The Naïve Argument Against Moral Vegetarianism. Environmental Values 9 (1):81 - 89.
    The naïve argument against moral vegetarianism claims that if it is wrong for us to eat meant then it is wrong for lions and tigers to do so as well. I argue that the fact that such carnivores lack higher order mental states and need meat to survive do suffice to undermine the naive argument.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  14.  9
    Kerry S. Walters & Lisa Portmess (eds.) (1999). Ethical Vegetarianism: From Pythagoras to Peter Singer. State University of New York Press.
    Selections are arranged chronologically, from antiquity to the present, and each selection includes an introduction. Appendices overview arguments against ethical vegetarianism. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  15.  46
    William O. Stephens (1994). Five Arguments for Vegetarianism. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 1 (4):25-39.
    Five different arguments for vegetarianism are discussed: the system of meat production deprives poor people of food to provide meat for the wealthy, thus violating the principle of distributive justice; the world livestock industry causes great and manifold ecological destruction; meat-eating cultures and societal oppression of women are intimately linked and so feminism and vegetarianism must both be embraced to transform our patriarchal culture; both utilitarian and rights-based reasoning lead to the conclusion that raising and slaughtering animals is (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  16.  48
    Andrew Tardiff (1998). A Catholic Case for Vegetarianism. Faith and Philosophy 15 (2):210-222.
    Very few Catholics become vegetarians for moral reasons, and virtually no one would expect them to since vegetarianism seems to go hand in hand with views which are incompatible with the Catholic faith. The purpose of this paper is to show that the Catholic Church accepts principles-widely accepted by others, too-which imply a conditional, though broadly applicable, obligation to avoid killing animals for food. Catholic thinkers have not hitherto applied these principles to vegetarianism, but have long used them (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  75
    Jonathan Harrison (2008). The Vagaries of Vegetarianism. Ratio 21 (3):286-299.
    The following was meant to be a 'fun paper', which the author's honesty and natural seriousness of mind prevented from coming off well. Its main theme is that it is not wrong to eat meat provided the animals eaten are painlessly killed or – usually in the case of human animals – already dead. In the course of his remarks the author touches on: the bearing of affluence on vegetarianism ; animal rights; child eating; treating animals as ends and (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18.  43
    David Detmer (2007). Vegetarianism, Traditional Morality, and Moral Conservatism. Journal of Philosophical Research 32 (Supplement):39-48.
    “Moral vegetarianism,” the doctrine that it is immoral to eat meat, is widely dismissed as eccentric. But I argue that moral vegetarianism is thoroughly conservative—it follows directly from two basic moral principles that nearly everyone already accepts. One is that it is morally wrong to cause unnecessary pain. The other is that if it is wrong in one case to do X, then it will also be wrong to do so in another, unless the two cases differ in (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19.  29
    John Zeis (2013). A Rawlsian Pro-Life Argument Against Vegetarianism. International Philosophical Quarterly 53 (1):63-71.
    Animal rights and vegetarianism for ethical reasons are positions gaining in influence in contemporary American culture. Although I think that certain rights for animals are consistent with and even entailed by the Catholic understanding of morality, vegetarianism is not. There is a plausible argument for an omnivorous diet from a Rawlsian original position. It is in direct contradiction to the Rawlsian-influenced ethical vegetarianism espoused by Mark Rowlands. Vegetarianism is not the moral high ground: ethical vegetarianism (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20. Ross Cameron, The Unjustified-Suffering Argument for Vegetarianism.
    A major argument for vegetarianism is that eating animals causes unjustified suffering. While this argument has been articulated by several people, it has received surprisingly little attention. Here I restate it in a way that I believe is most convincing, considering and rejecting the two main justifications for causing suffering in order to eat animals. I compare it to some other prominent arguments for vegetarianism, and discuss a major objection to the argument which focuses on whether the animals (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21.  13
    Y. Michael Barilan (2004). The Vision of Vegetarianism and Peace: Rabbi Kook on the Ethical Treatment of Animals. History of the Human Sciences 17 (4):69-101.
    Rabbi HaCohen Kook’s essay on vegetarianism and peace, first published in instalments in 1903–4, and reissued 60 years later, is the only treatise in rabbinic Judaism on the relationship between humans and animals. It is here examined as central to his ethical beliefs. His writings, shaped by his background as rabbi and mystic, illuminate the history of environmental and applied ethics. A century ago, he perceived the main challenge that confronts reform movements: multiculturalism.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. John Lawrence Hill (1996). The Case for Vegetarianism: Philosophy for a Small Planet. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
    This clear and elegantly argued book examines from various philosophical perspectives the many reasons for adopting a vegetarian diet, from animal interest and rights, to health benefits, global ecology, and world hunger. The book includes a chapter responding to common objectives to becoming vegetarian and an examination of why, if the evidence in its favor is so strong, vegetarianism has not caught on. More comprehensive and more philosophical than previous books on the subject,The Case for Vegetarianism is truly (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. Kathryn Paxton George (2002). Ethical Vegetarianism: From Pythagoras to Peter Singer (Review). Hypatia 17 (1):203-205.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24. R. G. Frey (1986). Rights, Killing, and Suffering: Moral Vegetarianism and Applied Ethics. Philosophical Review 95 (2):277-279.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  25. Dan Egonsson (1997). Kant's Vegetarianism. Journal of Value Inquiry 31 (4):473-483.
  26. Peter Singer (1980). Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism. Philosophy and Public Affairs 9 (4):325-337.
  27. David Benatar (2001). Why the Naïve Argument Against Moral Vegetarianism Really is Naïve. Environmental Values 10 (1):103 - 112.
    When presented with the claim of the moral vegetarian that it is wrong for us to eat meat, many people respond that because it is not wrong for lions, tigers and other carnivores to kill and eat animals, it cannot be wrong for humans to do so. This response is what Peter Alward has called the naive argument. Peter Alward has defended the naive argument against objections. I argue that his defence fails.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28. Gaverick Matheny (2003). Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism From Steven Davis's Omnivorous Proposal. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16 (5):505-511.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  29. Tom Regan (1980). Utilitarianism, Vegetarianism, and Animal Rights. Philosophy and Public Affairs 9 (4):305-324.
  30. Nathan Nobis (2008). Reasonable Humans and Animals: An Argument for Vegetarianism. Between the Species 13 (8):4.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  31. Gaverick Matheny (2002). Expected Utility, Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism. Journal of Applied Philosophy 19 (3):293–297.
  32. Roger Crisp (1988). Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 4 (1):41-49.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  33.  29
    Joel MacClellan (2013). Size Matters: Animal Size, Contributory Causation, and Ethical Vegetarianism. Journal of Animal Ethics 3 (1):57-68.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  34.  75
    Jeremy R. Garrett (2007). Utilitarianism, Vegetarianism, and Human Health: A Response to the Causal Impotence Objection. Journal of Applied Philosophy 24 (3):223–237.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  35.  92
    Nathan Nobis (2002). Vegetarianism and Virtue: Does Consequentialism Demand Too Little? Social Theory and Practice 28 (1):135-156.
    "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 (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  36.  43
    John Richard Harris & Richard Galvin (2012). 'Pass the Cocoamone, Please': Causal Impotence, Opportunistic Vegetarianism and Act-Utilitarianism. Ethics, Policy and Environment 15 (3):368 - 383.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  37.  8
    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.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  38. Michael Fox (1999). Deep Vegetarianism. Temple University Press.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  39.  80
    Tom Regan (1975). The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 5 (2):181 - 214.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  40. S. M. Easton (1985). Rights, Killing, and Suffering: Moral Vegetarianism and Applied Ethics. Journal of Medical Ethics 11 (1):51-52.
  41.  57
    Hud Hudson (1993). Collective Responsibility and Moral Vegetarianism. Journal of Social Philosophy 24 (2):89-104.
  42.  26
    Russ Shafer-Landau (1994). Vegetarianism, Causation and Ethical Theory. Public Affairs Quarterly 8 (1):85-100.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  43. Hon-Lam Li (2002). Animal Research, Non-Vegetarianism, and the Moral Status of Animals - Understanding the Impasse of the Animal Rights Problem. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 27 (5):589 – 615.
    I offer some reasons for the theory that, compared with human beings, non-human animals have some but lesser intrinsic value. On the basis of this theory, I first argue that we do not know how to compare an animal's claim to be free from a more serious type of harm, and a human's claim to be free from some lesser type of harm. For we need to take account of these parties' intrinsic value, and their competing types of claim. Yet, (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44.  48
    Jeff Jordan (2001). Why Friends Shouldn't Let Friends Be Eaten: An Argument for Vegetarianism. Social Theory and Practice 27 (2):309-322.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  45.  87
    Stuart Rachels, Vegetarianism.
    1. Animal Cruelty Industrial farming is appallingly abusive to animals. Pigs. In America, nine-tenths of pregnant sows live in “gestation crates. ” These pens are so small that the animals can barely move. When the sows are first crated, they may flail around, in an attempt to get out. But soon they give up. Crated pigs often show signs of depression: they engage meaningless, repetitive behavior, like chewing the air or biting the bars of the stall. The sows live like (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46.  14
    Patricia Murphy (1991). The Philosophy of Vegetarianism. Social Philosophy Today 6:308-310.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  58
    David Boonin (2002). Animal, Vegetable, or Woman?: A Feminist Critique of Ethical Vegetarianism. Environmental Ethics 24 (4):429-432.
  48.  47
    Philip E. Devine (1978). The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism. Philosophy 53 (206):481 - 505.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  49.  16
    Xinyan Jiang (2005). Why Was Mengzi Not a Vegetarianist? Journal of Chinese Philosophy 32 (1):59–73.
  50.  41
    Andrew Tardiff (1996). Simplifying the Case for Vegetarianism. Social Theory and Practice 22 (3):299-314.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
1 — 50 / 208