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

50 found
Order:
  1. Tristram McPherson (2014). A Case for Ethical Veganism. Journal of Moral Philosophy 11 (6):677-703.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  26
    Stijn Bruers (2015). The Core Argument for Veganism. Philosophia 43 (2):271-290.
    This article presents an argument for veganism, using a formal-axiomatic approach: a list of twenty axioms are explicitly stated. These axioms are all necessary conditions to derive the conclusion that veganism is a moral duty. The presented argument is a minimalist or core argument for veganism, because it is as parsimonious as possible, using the weakest conditions, the narrowest definitions, the most reliable empirical facts and the minimal assumptions necessary to reach the conclusion. If someone does not (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  50
    Ian Werkheiser (2013). Domination and Consumption: An Examination of Veganism, Anarchism, and Ecofeminism. Journal of Existential and Phenomenological Theory and Culture 8 (2):135-160.
    Anarchism provides a useful set of theoretical tools for understanding and resisting our culture’s treatment of non-human animals. However, some points of disagreement exist in anarchist discourse, such as the question of veganism. In this paper I will use the debate around veganism as a way of exploring the anarchist discourse on non-human animals, how that discourse can benefit more mainstream work on non-human animals, and how work coming out of mainstream environmental discourse, in particular the ecofeminist work (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. Bob Fischer (forthcoming). You Can't Buy Your Way Out of Veganism. Between the Species.
    Let’s make three assumptions. First, we shouldn’t support factory farms. Second, if animal-friendly agriculture lives up to its name—that is, if animals live good lives (largely free of pain, able to engage in species-specific behaviors, etc.) and are slaughtered in a way that minimizes suffering—then there is nothing intrinsically wrong with killing them for food. Third, animal-friendly agriculture does, in fact, live up to its name. Given these assumptions, it might seem difficult to criticize individuals who source their animal products (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5.  73
    Christopher Ciocchetti (2012). Veganism and Living Well. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (3):405-417.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6.  20
    Katherine Wayne (2013). Permissible Use and Interdependence: Against Principled Veganism. Journal of Applied Philosophy 30 (2):160-175.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  13
    László Erdős (2015). Veganism Versus Meat-Eating, and the Myth of “Root Capacity”: A Response to Hsiao. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (6):1139-1144.
    The relationship between humans and non-human animals has received considerable attention recently. Animal advocates insist that non-human animals must be included in the moral community. Consequently, eating meat is, at least in most cases, morally bad. In an article entitled “In Defense of Eating Meat”, Hsiao argued that for the membership in the moral community, the “root capacity for rational agency” is necessary. As non-human animals lack this capacity, so the argument runs, they do not belong to the moral community. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  8.  32
    Lisa Johnson (2015). The Religion of Ethical Veganism. Journal of Animal Ethics 5 (1):31-68,.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9.  2
    A. G. Holdier (forthcoming). The Pig’s Squeak: Towards a Renewed Aesthetic Argument for Veganism. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics:1-12.
    In 1906, Henry Stephens Salt published a short collection of essays that presented several rhetorically powerful, if formally deficient arguments for the vegetarian position. By interpreting Salt as a moral sentimentalist with ties to Aristotelian virtue ethics, I propose that his aesthetic argument deserves contemporary consideration. First, I connect ethics and aesthetics with the Greek concepts of kalon and kalokagathia that depend equally on beauty and morality before presenting Salt’s assertion: slaughterhouses are disgusting, therefore they should not be promoted. I (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10.  40
    Tzachi Zamir (2004). Veganism. Journal of Social Philosophy 35 (3):367–379.
  11.  17
    Michael Allen Fox (2013). Vegetarianism and Veganism. In Hugh LaFollette (ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Ethics. Wiley-Blackwell
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  5
    Leah Leneman (1999). No Animal Food: The Road to Veganism in Britain, 1909-1944. Society and Animals 7 (3):219-228.
    There were individuals in the vegetarian movement in Britain who believed that to refrain from eating flesh, fowl, and fish while continuing to partake of dairy products and eggs was not going far enough. Between 1909 and 1912, The Vegetarian Society's journal published a vigorous correspondence on this subject. In 1910, a publisher brought out a cookery book entitled, No Animal Food. After World War I, the debate continued within the Vegetarian Society about the acceptability of animal by-products. It centered (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13. Peter Singer (2007). A Case For Veganism. Free Inquiry 27:18-19.
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14.  13
    Christiane Bailey & Chloë Taylor (2013). Editor's Introduction. Phaenex. Journal of Existential and Phenomenological Theory and Culture 8 (2):i-xv.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. 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, a concern (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  16.  20
    Matthew C. Halteman & Megan Halteman Zwart (2016). "Philosophy as Therapy for Recovering (Unrestrained) Omnivores". In Andrew Chignell, Terence Cuneo, and Matthew C. Halteman, eds., Philosophy Comes to Dinner: Arguments about the Ethics of Eating, New York: Routledge, 2016.
    Recourse to a variety of well-constructed arguments is undoubtedly a significant strategic asset for cultivating more ethical eating habits and convincing others to follow suit. Nevertheless, common obstacles often prevent even the best arguments from getting traction in our lives. For one thing, many of us enter the discussion hampered by firmly-entrenched but largely uninvestigated assumptions about food that make it difficult to imagine how even well-supported arguments that challenge our familiar frames of culinary reference could actually apply to us. (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  11
    Timothy Hsiao (2015). A Carnivorous Rejoinder to Bruers and Erdös. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (6):1127-1138.
    In an earlier paper, I defended the moral permissibility of eating meat against sentience-based arguments for moral vegetarianism. The crux of my argument was that sentience is not an intrinsically morally salient property, and that animals lack moral status because they lack a root capacity for rational agency. Accordingly, it is morally permissible to consume meat even if doing so is not strictly necessary for our nutrition. This paper responds to critiques of my argument by Bruers :705–717, 2015) and Erdös. (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  18.  16
    Bob Fischer (2016). Bugging the Strict Vegan. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (2):255-263.
    Entomophagy—eating insects—is getting a lot of attention these days. However, strict vegans are often uncomfortable with entomophagy based on some version of the precautionary principle: if you aren’t sure that a being isn’t sentient, then you should treat it as though it is. But not only do precautionary principle-based arguments against entomophagy fail, they seem to support the opposite conclusion: strict vegans ought to eat bugs.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19.  28
    Jan Deckers (2013). In Defence of the Vegan Project. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 10 (2):187-195.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  20. Krzysztof Saja (2013). Minimalizacja Cierpienia Zwierząt a Wegetarianizm. Analiza I Egzystencja 22:67-83.
    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
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21. 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 or (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  22. Matthew C. Halteman, Living Toward the Peaceable Kingdom: Compassionate Eating as Care of Creation. Humane Society of the United States Animals and Religion.
  23. Krzysztof Saja (2013). The Moral Footprint of Animal Products. Agriculture and Human Values 30 (2):193–202.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24.  3
    Bob Fischer & Burkay Ozturk (2016). Facsimiles of Flesh. Journal of Applied Philosophy 33 (2).
    Ed Gein was a serial killer, grave robber, and body snatcher who made a lampshade from human skin. Now consider the detective who found that lampshade. Let's suppose that he would never want to own it; however, he does find that he wants a synthetic one just like it – a perfect replica. We assume that there is something morally problematic about the detective having such a replica. We then argue that, given as much, we can reach the surprising conclusion (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25.  17
    Simon Gaus (2014). Folgt aus dem unwert der Tierhaltung ein Verbot des Fleischkonsums? Grazer Philosophische Studien 88:257-267.
    It is natural to assume that it can only be morally permissible for consumers to buy meat products if the breeding and killing of animals for the purpose of meat production is morally acceptable. is assumption presupposes a stable and morally relevant connection between the consumption and the production of meat. While both act-consequentialism and the Kantian idea of generalizability initially appear to support that view, neither of them succeeds in establishing a connection of the required kind.
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26.  53
    Krzysztof Saja (2013). Utylitaryzm I Welfaryzm a Uzasadnienie Wegetarianizmu. Analiza I Egzystencja 22:239-247.
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27.  25
    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.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  28.  29
    Tzachi Zamir (2007). The Welfare-Based Defense of Zoos. Society and Animals 15 (2):191-201.
    A "welfare-based defense" of a practice involving nonhuman animals presents the examined practice as promoting the animal's own interests. Such justifications surface in relation to various interactions between human and nonhuman animals. Sometimes such arguments appear persuasive. Sometimes they form self-serving rationalizations. This paper attempts to clarify and specify the distinction between plausible and dubious applications of such arguments. It then examines a detailed welfare-based defense of zoos.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29.  26
    Merle E. Van der Kooi (2010). The Inconsistent Vegetarian. Society and Animals 18 (3):291-305.
    Vegetarians are often charged with inconsistency. They are told that, if they refrain from meat consumption, they should also refrain from the consumption of all animal products. The central question this paper addresses is whether the requirement of consistency means that vegetarians should become vegans. It is argued that if a vegetarian is motivated by arguments that focus on animals, she is indeed inconsistent and should become a vegan.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30.  47
    Joel Marks (2010). Innocent and Innocuous: The Case Against Animal Research. Between the Species (10):98-117.
    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 (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31.  21
    Rob Irvine (2013). Food Ethics: Issues of Consumption and Production. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 10 (2):145-148.
  32.  12
    Nicole R. Pallotta (2008). Origin of Adult Animal Rights Lifestyle in Childhood Responsiveness to Animal Suffering. Society and Animals 16 (2):149-170.
    This qualitative study examines the childhood experiences of adult animal rights activists regarding their feelings about, and interactions with, nonhuman animals. Central to children's experiences with animals is the act of eating them, a ritual both normalized and encouraged by the dominant culture and agents of socialization. Yet, despite the massive power of socialization, sometimes children resist the dominant norms of consumption regarding animals. In addition to engaging in acts of resistance, some children, as suggested in the biographical narratives of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33.  5
    Evangelos D. Protopapadakis (ed.) (2012). Animal Ethics: Past and Present Perspectives. Logos Verlag.
    Philosophy, as Aristotle said, originates in wonder. And nonhuman animals have long been a source of wonder to humans, especially in regard to the treatment they deserve. The upshot is that Western philosophy has been concerned with the way in which we ought to treat nonhuman animals since its origins with the pre-Socratic philosophers. -/- Animal ethics is a highly challenging field, as well as one of the liveliest areas of debate in ethics in recent years. Not only has this (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34.  8
    Gary L. Francione (2009). Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation. Columbia University Press.
    A prominent and respected philosopher of animal rights law and ethical theory, Gary L. Francione is known for his criticism of animal welfare laws and regulations, his abolitionist theory of animal rights, and his promotion of veganism and nonviolence as the baseline principles of the abolitionist movement. In this collection, Francione advances the most radical theory of animal rights to date. Unlike Peter Singer, Francione maintains that we cannot morally justify using animals under any circumstances, and unlike Tom Regan, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   9 citations  
  35.  3
    Gary L. Francione & Gary Steiner (2008). Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation. Cup.
    A prominent and respected philosopher of animal rights law and ethical theory, Gary L. Francione is known for his criticism of animal welfare laws and regulations, his abolitionist theory of animal rights, and his promotion of veganism and nonviolence as the baseline principles of the abolitionist movement. In this collection, Francione advances the most radical theory of animal rights to date. Unlike Peter Singer, Francione maintains that we cannot morally justify using animals under any circumstances, and unlike Tom Regan, (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  36.  84
    Andy Lamey (2007). Food Fight! Davis Versus Regan on the Ethics of Eating Beef. Journal of Social Philosophy 38 (2):331–348.
    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 (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  37. 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 (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  38.  7
    Dominique Lestel & Matthew Chrulew (2014). The Animal Outside the Text. Angelaki 19 (3):187-196.
    This interview ranges across a number of topics relevant to Dominique Lestel's thought: the history and philosophy of ethology; animal culture; realist-Cartesian and bi-constructivist ethology; biosemiotics; philo- sophical anthropology; animal studies; the other-than-human; veganism; and technology. It touches on thinkers including Bruno Latour, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Paul Shepard, and Donna Haraway.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  39. David M. Kaplan (ed.) (2012). The Philosophy of Food. University of California Press.
    This book explores food from a philosophical perspective, bringing together sixteen leading philosophers to consider the most basic questions about food: What is it exactly? What should we eat? How do we know it is safe? How should food be distributed? What is good food? David M. Kaplan’s erudite and informative introduction grounds the discussion, showing how philosophers since Plato have taken up questions about food, diet, agriculture, and animals. However, until recently, few have considered food a standard subject for (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  40.  28
    Barbara McDonald (2000). "Once You Know Something, You Can't Not Know It" An Empirical Look at Becoming Vegan. Society and Animals 8 (1):1-23.
    In spite of a growing body of vegetarian literature, there remains a lack of information about how people learn to become vegan. Using qualitative methodology, this research identified a psychological process of how people learn about and adopt veganism. Elements of the process include who I was, catalytic experiences, possible repression of information, an orientation to learn, the decision, learning about veganism, and acquiring a vegan world view. Noteworthy observations include individual and temporal variation in the use of (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  41.  19
    Dominique Lestel (2014). The Carnivore's Ethics. Angelaki 19 (3):161-167.
    The position of veganism is ulti- mately inconsistent, speciesist and unrealistic. To be human is to fully embrace the fact that our bodies can be formed from other animals. Unlike vegans, carnivores permit themselves to be intoxicated by other animals and take plea- sure in meat eating. Nevertheless, factory farming should be rejected and meat consumed responsibly.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42.  16
    Caryn Ginsberg & Brian Lowe (2002). Animal Rights as a Post-Citizenship Movement. Society and Animals 10 (2):203-215.
    Post-citizenship movements include persons who are well integrated into the economic and educational structures of their society, advocate goals that offer little or no benefit to movement members, and pursue cultural changes in addition to more traditional social movement goals . This survey of 105 attendees at the Animal Rights 2000 conference, described by organizers as the largest event of its kind, supported viewing the animal rights movement as a post-citizenship movement. While confirming the high level of economic and education (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  43.  14
    Brian M. Lowe & Caryn F. Ginsberg (2002). Animal Rights as a Post-Citizenship Movement. Society and Animals 10 (2):203-215.
    Post-citizenship movements include persons who are well integrated into the economic and educational structures of their society, advocate goals that offer little or no benefit to movement members, and pursue cultural changes in addition to more traditional social movement goals . This survey of 105 attendees at the Animal Rights 2000 conference, described by organizers as the largest event of its kind, supported viewing the animal rights movement as a post-citizenship movement. While confirming the high level of economic and education (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  44.  17
    Floris Van Den Berg (2014). Ripping Apart the Omnivore's Argument. Think 13 (37):23-26.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45.  23
    William O. Stephens, To Eat Flesh They Are Willing, Are Their Spirits Weak? Vegetarians Who Return to Meat.
    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
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46.  6
    Carrie Packwood Freeman (2010). Framing Animal Rights in the “Go Veg” Campaigns of U.S. Animal Rights Organizations. Society and Animals 18 (2):163-182.
    How much do animal rights activists talk about animal rights when they attempt to persuade America’s meat-lovers to stop eating nonhuman animals? This study serves as the basis for a unique evaluation and categorization of problems and solutions as framed by five major U.S. animal rights organizations in their vegan/food campaigns. The findings reveal that the organizations framed the problems as: cruelty and suffering; commodification; harm to humans and the environment; and needless killing. To solve problems largely blamed on factory (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  1
    Matthew Chrulew & Dominique Lestel (2014). The Animal Outside the Text: An Interview with Dominique Lestel. Angelaki 19 (3):187-196.
    This interview ranges across a number of topics relevant to Dominique Lestel's thought: the history and philosophy of ethology; animal culture; realist-Cartesian and bi-constructivist ethology; biosemiotics; philo- sophical anthropology; animal studies; the other-than-human; veganism; and technology. It touches on thinkers including Bruno Latour, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Gilles Deleuze, Paul Shepard, and Donna Haraway.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48. Gary L. Francione (2008). Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation. Cup.
    A prominent and respected philosopher of animal rights law and ethical theory, Gary L. Francione is known for his criticism of animal welfare laws and regulations, his abolitionist theory of animal rights, and his promotion of veganism and nonviolence as the baseline principles of the abolitionist movement. In this collection, Francione advances the most radical theory of animal rights to date. Unlike Peter Singer, Francione maintains that we cannot morally justify using animals under any circumstances, and unlike Tom Regan, (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49. Richard Francis (2011). Fruitlands: The Alcott Family and Their Search for Utopia. Yale University Press.
    This is the first definitive account of Fruitlands, one of history’s most unsuccessful—but most significant—utopian experiments. It was established in Massachusetts in 1843 by Bronson Alcott and an Englishman called Charles Lane, under the watchful gaze of Emerson, Thoreau, and other New England intellectuals. Alcott and Lane developed their own version of the doctrine known as Transcendentalism, hoping to transform society and redeem the environment through a strict regime of veganism and celibacy. But physical suffering and emotional conflict—particularly between (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50. Richard Francis (2010). Fruitlands: The Alcott Family and Their Search for Utopia. Yale University Press.
    This is the first definitive account of Fruitlands, one of history’s most unsuccessful—but most significant—utopian experiments. It was established in Massachusetts in 1843 by Bronson Alcott and an Englishman called Charles Lane, under the watchful gaze of Emerson, Thoreau, and other New England intellectuals. Alcott and Lane developed their own version of the doctrine known as Transcendentalism, hoping to transform society and redeem the environment through a strict regime of veganism and celibacy. But physical suffering and emotional conflict—particularly between (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography