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

24 found
Sort by:
  1. Tristram McPherson (2014). A Case for Ethical Veganism. Journal of Moral Philosophy 11 (6):677-703.score: 21.0
    This paper argues for ethical veganism: the thesis that it is typically wrong to consume animal products. The paper first sets out an intuitive case for this thesis that begins with the intuitive claim that it is wrong to set fire to a cat. I then raise a methodological challenge: this is an intuitive argument for a revisionary conclusion. Even if we grant that we cannot both believe that it is permissible to drink milk, and that it is wrong (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Christopher Ciocchetti (2012). Veganism and Living Well. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (3):405-417.score: 18.0
    I argue that many philosophical arguments for veganism underestimate what is at stake for humans who give up eating animal products. By saying all that’s at stake for humans is taste and characterizing taste in simplistic terms, they underestimate the reasonable resistance that arguments for veganism will meet. Taste, they believe, is trivial. Omnivores, particular those that I label meaningful omnivores, disagree. They believe that eating meat provides a more meaningful meal, though just how this works proves elusive. (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Katherine Wayne (2013). Permissible Use and Interdependence: Against Principled Veganism. Journal of Applied Philosophy 30 (2):160-175.score: 18.0
    Are animals not ours to use? According to proponents of veganism such as Gary Francione, any and all use of animals by humans is exploitative and wrong. It is wrong because animals have intrinsic worth and humans' use of animals fails to respect that worth. Contra Francione, I argue that that there are conditions under which it may be morally appropriate to collect, consume, sell, or otherwise use animal products. Francione is mistaken in his belief that assigning intrinsic worth (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Tzachi Zamir (2004). Veganism. Journal of Social Philosophy 35 (3):367–379.score: 15.0
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Michael Allen Fox (2013). Vegetarianism and Veganism. In Hugh LaFollette (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Ethics. Wiley-Blackwell.score: 15.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Leah Leneman (1999). No Animal Food: The Road to Veganism in Britain, 1909-1944. Society and Animals 7 (3):219-228.score: 15.0
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Christiane Bailey & Chloë Taylor (2013). Editor's Introduction. Phaenex. Journal of Existential and Phenomenological Theory and Culture 8 (2):i-xv.score: 9.0
    Christiane Bailey and Chloë Taylor (Editorial Introduction) Sue Donaldson (Stirring the Pot - A short play in six scenes) Ralph Acampora (La diversification de la recherche en éthique animale et en études animales) Eva Giraud (Veganism as Affirmative Biopolitics: Moving Towards a Posthumanist Ethics?) Leonard Lawlor (The Flipside of Violence, or Beyond the Thought of Good Enough) Kelly Struthers Montford (The “Present Referent”: Nonhuman Animal Sacrifice and the Constitution of Dominant Albertan Identity) James Stanescu (Beyond Biopolitics: Animal Studies, Factory (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Jan Deckers (2009). Vegetarianism, Sentimental or Ethical? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (6):573-597.score: 6.0
    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, a concern (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Matthew C. Halteman, Living Toward the Peaceable Kingdom: Compassionate Eating as Care of Creation. Humane Society of the United States Animals and Religion.score: 6.0
  10. Krzysztof Saja (2013). The Moral Footprint of Animal Products. Agriculture and Human Values 30 (2):193–202.score: 6.0
    Most ethical discussions about diet are focused on the justification of specific kinds of products rather than an individual assessment of the moral footprint of eating products of certain animal species. This way of thinking is represented in the typical division of four dietary attitudes. There are vegans, vegetarians, welfarists and ordinary meat-eaters. However, the common “all or nothing” discussions between meat-eaters, vegans and vegetarians bypass very important factors in assessing dietary habits. I argue that if we want to discover (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Evelyn B. Pluhar (1993). On Vegetarianism, Morality, and Science: A Counter Reply. [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6 (2):185-213.score: 6.0
    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 or (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Joel Marks (2010). Innocent and Innocuous: The Case Against Animal Research. Between the Species (10):98-117.score: 6.0
    Animal research is a challenging issue for the animal advocate because of what, besides animal well-being, is considered to be at stake, namely, human health. This article seeks to vindicate the antivivisectionist position. The standard defense of animal research as promoting the overwhelming good of human health is refuted on both factual and logical, or normative-theoretical, grounds. The author then attempts to clinch the case by arguing that animal research violates a deontic principle. However, this principle falls to counterexample. The (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Krzysztof Saja (2013). Minimalizacja Cierpienia Zwierząt a Wegetarianizm. Analiza I Egzystencja 22:67-83.score: 6.0
    The article is a reductio ad absurdum of assumptions which are shared by a large number of followers of the animal welfare movement and utilitarianism. I argue that even if we accept the main ethical arguments for a negative moral assessment of eating meat we should not promote vegetarianism but rather beefism (eating only meat from beef cattle). I also argue that some forms of vegetarianism, i.e. ichtivegetarianism, can be much more morally worse than normal meat diet. In order to (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Krzysztof Saja (2013). Utylitaryzm I Welfaryzm a Uzasadnienie Wegetarianizmu. Analiza I Egzystencja 22:239-247.score: 6.0
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Merle E. Van der Kooi (2010). The Inconsistent Vegetarian. Society and Animals 18 (3):291-305.score: 6.0
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Jan Deckers (2013). In Defence of the Vegan Project. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 10 (2):187-195.score: 6.0
    The vegan project is defined as the project that strives for radical legal reform to pass laws that would reserve the consumption of animal products to a very narrow range of situations, resulting in vegan diets being the default diets for the majority of human beings. Two objections that have been raised against such a project are described. The first is that such a project would jeopardise the nutritional adequacy of human diets. The second is that it would alienate human (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Rob Irvine (2013). Food Ethics: Issues of Consumption and Production. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 10 (2):145-148.score: 6.0
  18. Johanna Dwyer & Franklin M. Loew (1994). Nutritional Risks of Vegan Diets to Women and Children: Are They Preventable? [REVIEW] Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):87-109.score: 6.0
    The potential health risks of vegan diets specifically for women and children are discussed. Women and children are at higher risk of malnutrition from consumption of unsupplemented vegan diets than are adult males. Those who are very young, pregnant, lactating, elderly, or who suffer from poverty, disease or other environmentally induced disadvantages are at special risk. The size of these risks is difficult to quantify from existing studies. Fortunately the risk of dietary deficiency disease can be avoided and the potential (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Tzachi Zamir (2007). The Welfare-Based Defense of Zoos. Society and Animals 15 (2):191-201.score: 6.0
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Nicole R. Pallotta (2008). Origin of Adult Animal Rights Lifestyle in Childhood Responsiveness to Animal Suffering. Society and Animals 16 (2):149-170.score: 6.0
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Andy Lamey (2007). Food Fight! Davis Versus Regan on the Ethics of Eating Beef. Journal of Social Philosophy 38 (2):331–348.score: 3.0
    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 (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Kathryn Paxton George (1994). Discrimination and Bias in the Vegan Ideal. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):19-28.score: 3.0
    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 (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. William O. Stephens, To Eat Flesh They Are Willing, Are Their Spirits Weak? Vegetarians Who Return to Meat.score: 3.0
    interpreted to support the ethical case for vegetarianism.[3] Yet to my knowledge Aronson’s is the first book devoted to lapsed vegetarians, which she dubs “lapsosâ€. Aronson declares “...I have no intention of answering the question posed in the book's title, although I shall ask what it means†(3). Yet, evidently despite her intention, by the end of the book she writes “...many struggle with the implications of eating or not eating meat. In the struggle itself, the spirit is strengthened; to (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Floris Van Den Berg (2014). Ripping Apart the Omnivore's Argument. Think 13 (37):23-26.score: 3.0
    People often say that humans are omnivores in order to justify eating meat as normal and veganism as abnormal. The is one of the arguments that vegetarians and vegans encounter when meat-eaters try to defend the moral acceptability of body parts on their plate. When responding to this argument, the position of the vegan is similar to the atheist who time and again is confronted with the same fallacious arguments in support of the existence of god(s). Veganism and (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation