Related categories

328 found
Order:
1 — 50 / 328
  1. The Meat.George Abbe - 1989 - Between the Species 5 (4):12.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory.Carol J. Adams - 2000 - Continuum.
    New Tenth Anniversary edition of this classic text with a new preface by the author, compares myths about meat-eating with myths about manliness, and seeks to ...
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   36 citations  
  3. Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animals.Carol J. Adams - 1991 - Hypatia 6 (1):125 - 145.
    In this essay, I will argue that contemporary ecofeminist discourse, while potentially adequate to deal with the issue of animals, is now inadequate because it fails to give consistent conceptual place to the domination of animals as a significant aspect of the domination of nature. I will examine six answers ecofeminists could give for not including animals explicitly in ecofeminist analyses and show how a persistent patriarchal ideology regarding animals as instruments has kept the experience of animals from being fully (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  4. The Consequences of Individual Consumption: A Defence of Threshold Arguments for Vegetarianism and Consumer Ethics.Ben Almassi - 2011 - 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 others (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  5. Opportunistic Carnivorism.Michael J. Almeida & Mark H. Bernstein - 2000 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 17 (2):205–211.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  6. The Naive Argument Against Moral Vegetarianism.P. Alward - 2000 - 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.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  7. Biocentric Ethics and Animal Prosperity.A. T. Anchustegui - 2005 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 19 (1):105-119.
    Singer’s utilitarian and Regan’s deontological views must be rejected because: (1) they rely on criteria for moral standing that can only be known a priori and (2) if these criteria were successful, they’d be too restrictive. I hold that while mental properties may be sufficient for moral standing, they are not necessary. (3) Their criteria of moral standing do not unambiguously abrogate needless harm to animals. I defend a theory of biocentric individualism that upholds the principle of species egalitarianism while (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. The Animal Ethics Reader.Susan J. Armstrong & Richard George Botzler (eds.) - 2008 - Routledge.
    The Animal Ethics Reader is the first comprehensive, state-of-the-art anthology of readings on this substantial area of study and interest. A subject that regularly captures the headlines, the book is designed to appeal to anyone interested in tracing the history of the subject, as well as providing a powerful insight into the debate as it has developed. The recent wealth of material published in this area has not, until now, been collected in one volume. Readings are arranged thematically, carefully presenting (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  9. Meet the Meat: So, Where's the Beef?H. E. Baber - manuscript
    Preferentism is the doctrine that "in deciding what is good and what is bad for a given individual, the ultimate criterion can only be his own wants and his own preferences." If preferentism is true then it would seem to follow that modifying a person's preferences so that they are satisfied by what is on offer should be as good as improving the circumstances of her life to satisfy her preferences. Our intuitive response to stories of life-adjustment through brainwashing, psychosurgery (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  10. Eating Words.Julian Baggini - 2002 - The Philosophers' Magazine 20:3-3.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11. We Are What We Eat: Feminist Vegetarianism and the Reproduction of Racial Identity.Cathryn Bailey - 2007 - 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 ethical vegetarianism. (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  12. Editor's Introduction.Christiane Bailey & Chloë Taylor - 2013 - 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 Farms, (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13. Book Review: A Critique of the Moral Defense of Vegetarianism. [REVIEW]Paul Bali - unknown
    Smith makes his case against V-ism by appeals to (i) plant sentience, and (ii) the Transitivity of Eating principle [by which V-ans eat animals, since plants feed on decomposed animals]. By (i), V-ans are inconsistent in their prohibitions; by (ii) V-ism is impossible. -/- But, I argue, Smith and his beloved omnivore animists face similar pressures, insofar as they prohibit cannibalism.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14. The Benefit of Regan's Doubt.Robert Bass - manuscript
    Regan appeals to the benefit of the doubt as a reason to include some animals within the scope of his arguments about the rights of animals. I think the informal appeal to the benefit of the doubt can be fleshed out and made more compelling. What I shall do differs from his project, however. It is narrower in scope, because I shall focus on a single issue, the dietary use of animals. On another dimension, though, I aim to do more. (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. Moral Lore and the Ethics of Eating.Robert Bass - 2011 - Think 10 (29):83-90.
    Your mother was wise to teach you that just because everybody’s doing it, that doesn’t make it right. She would have been wise to add that just because everybody thinks it, that doesn’t make it right, either. On the other hand, she would not have been wise to add (and probably did not) that when everybody agrees, that is no evidence whatsoever. When nearly everybody believes something, that’s a reason in its favor. . . . I shall look at a (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16. Without a Tear: Our Tragic Relationship with Animals. [REVIEW]Robert Bass - 2005 - Journal of Value Inquiry 39 (2):273-277.
    Since Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation, many philosophers have addressed the ethics of our relations with other animals with skill and insight. By and large, they have argued that something is badly wrong and therefore in need of radical reform, though there have been dissenters, like Peter Carruthers, in The Animals Issue. One feature many such works have had in common is the reliance of their authors upon contentious theoretical stances. There have been utilitarian, Kantian, and contractarian arguments, with theses and (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17. You Are What You Eat: Meat, Novel Protein Foods, and Consumptive Freedom. [REVIEW]Volkert Beekman - 2000 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12 (2):185-196.
    Animal husbandry has been accused ofmaltreating animals, polluting the environment, and soon. These accusations were thought to be answered whenthe Dutch research program ``Sustainable TechnologicalDevelopment'' (STD) suggested a government-initiatedconversion from meat to novel protein foods (NPFs).STD reasoned that if consumers converted from meat toNPFs, non-sustainable animal husbandry would no longerbe needed. Whereas STD only worried about how toconstruct NPFs with a meat bite, this paper drawsattention to the presumed, but problematic, role forthe government in the execution of the STDsuggestions. Although (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  18. Utilitarianism and Animal Cruelty: Further Doubts.Davies Ben - 2016 - De Ethica 3 (3):5-19.
    Utilitarianism has an apparent pedigree when it comes to animal welfare. It supports the view that animal welfare matters just as much as human welfare. And many utilitarians support and oppose various practices in line with more mainstream concern over animal welfare, such as that we should not kill animals for food or other uses, and that we ought not to torture animals for fun. This relationship has come under tension from many directions. The aim of this article is to (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19. Why the Naive Argument Against Moral Vegetarianism Really is Naive.D. Benatar - 2001 - 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.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  20. Tender Meat Under the Saddle: Customs of Eating, Drinking and Hospitality Among Conquering Hungarians and Nomadic Peoples. [REVIEW]Nora Berend - 2000 - The Medieval Review 2.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21. They 'Re Made Out of Meat'.Terry Bisson - 2000 - Free Inquiry 20.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  22. Animal, Vegetable, or Woman?: A Feminist Critique of Ethical Vegetarianism.David Boonin - 2002 - Environmental Ethics 24 (4):429-432.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23. The Case Against Meat.Ben Bramble - forthcoming - In Ben Bramble Bob Fischer (ed.), The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat. Oxford University Press.
    There is a simple but powerful argument against the human practice of raising and killing animals for food (RKF for short). It goes like this: 1. RKF is extremely bad for animals. 2. RKF is only trivially good for human beings Therefore, 3. RKF should be stopped. While many consider this argument decisive, not everyone is convinced. There have been four main lines of objection to it. In this paper, I provide new responses to these four objections.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24. The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat.Ben Bramble & Bob Fischer (eds.) - 2015 - Oxford University Press.
    In a world of industralized farming and feed lots, is eating meat ever a morally responsible choice? Is eating organic or free range sufficient to change the moral equation? Is there a moral cost in not eating meat? As billions of animals continue to be raised and killed by human beings for human consumption, affecting the significance and urgency in answering these questions grow. This volume collects twelve new essays by leading moral philosophers who address the difficult questions surrounding meat (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. On Becoming Vegetarian.Mark Braunstein - 1985 - Between the Species 1 (4):11.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26. Picky Eating is a Moral Failing.Matthew J. Brown - 2007 - In Dave Monroe & Fritz Allhoff (eds.), Food & Philosophy: Eat, Think, and Be Merry. Blackwell.
    Common wisdom includes expressions such as “there is no accounting for taste'’ that express a widely-accepted subjectivism about taste. We commonly say things like “I can’t stand anything with onions in it'’ or “Oh, I’d never eat sushi,'’ and we accept such from our friends and associates. It is the position of this essay that much of this language is actually quite unacceptable. Without appealing to complete objectivism about taste, I will argue that there are good reasons to think that (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27. Strict Vegetarianism is Immoral.Donald W. Bruckner - 2015 - In Ben Bramble & Fischer Bob (eds.), The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat. Oxford University Press. pp. 30-47.
    The most popular and convincing arguments for the claim that vegetarianism is morally obligatory focus on the extensive, unnecessary harm done to animals and to the environment by raising animals industrially in confinement conditions (factory farming). I outline the strongest versions of these arguments. I grant that it follows from their central premises that purchasing and consuming factoryfarmed meat is immoral. The arguments fail, however, to establish that strict vegetarianism is obligatory because they falsely assume that eating vegetables is the (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  28. Considerations on the Morality of Meat Consumption: Hunted-Game Versus Farm-Raised Animals.Donald W. Bruckner - 2007 - Journal of Social Philosophy 38 (2):311–330.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29. In Defense of Eating Vegan.Stijn Bruers - 2015 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (4):705-717.
    In his article ‘In Defense of Eating Meat’, Timothy Hsiao argued that sentience is not sufficient for moral status, that the pain experienced by an animal is bad but not morally bad, that the nutritional interests of humans trump the interests of animals and that eating meat is permissible. In this article I explore the strengths and weaknesses of Hsiao’s argument, clarify some issues and argue that eating meat is likely in conflict with some of our strongest moral intuitions.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  30. The Core Argument for Veganism.Stijn Bruers - 2015 - 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 accept the conclusion, (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  31. Deconstruction is Not Vegetarianism: Humanism, Subjectivity, and Animal Ethics.Matthew Calarco - 2004 - 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 anthropocentric, (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  32. The Unjustified-Suffering Argument for Vegetarianism.Ross Cameron - manuscript
    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 would not (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33. Critical Perspectives on Veganism.Jodey Castricano & Rasmus Rahbek Simonsen (eds.) - 2016 - United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
    This book examines the ethics, politics and aesthetics of veganism in contemporary culture and thought. Traditionally a lifestyle located on the margins of western culture, veganism has now been propelled into the mainstream, and as agribusiness grows animal issues are inextricably linked to environmental impact as well as to existing ethical concerns. -/- This collection connects veganism to a range of topics including gender, sexuality, race, the law and popular culture. It explores how something as basic as one’s food choices (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34. The Causal Impotency Objection to Vegetarianism.Aaron Champene & Don A. Merrell - 2008 - 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.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35. On the Threshold Argument Against Consumer Meat Purchases.Gary Chartier - 2005 - Journal of Social Philosophy 37 (2):233–249.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. Philosophy Comes to Dinner: Arguments on the Ethics of Eating.Andrew Chignell, Terence Cuneo & Matthew C. Halteman - 2015 - Routledge.
    Everyone is talking about food. Chefs are celebrities. "Locavore" and "freegan" have earned spots in the dictionary. Popular books and films about food production and consumption are exposing the unintended consequences of the standard American diet. Questions about the principles and values that ought to guide decisions about dinner have become urgent for moral, ecological, and health-related reasons. In _Philosophy Comes to Dinner_, twelve philosophers—some leading voices, some inspiring new ones—join the conversation, and consider issues ranging from the sustainability of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  37. Food System Fragility and Resilience in the Aftermath of Disruption and Controversy.Robert M. Chiles - 2016 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (6):1021-1042.
    Discussions about “disruptive” food controversies abound in popular and academic literatures, particularly with respect to meat production and consumption, yet there is little scholarship examining what makes an event disruptive in the first instance. Filling this gap will improve our understanding of how food controversies unfold and why certain issues may be more likely to linger in the public consciousness as opposed to others. I address these questions by using focus groups and in-depth interviews to analyze five potentially upsetting topics: (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  38. If They Come, We Will Build It: In Vitro Meat and the Discursive Struggle Over Future Agrofood Expectations.Robert Magneson Chiles - 2013 - Agriculture and Human Values 30 (4):511-523.
    According to recent literature in the sociology of expectations, expectations about the future are “performative” in that they provide guidance for activities, attract attention, mobilize political and economic resources, coordinate between groups, link technical and social concerns, create visions, and enroll supporters. While this framework has blossomed over the past decade in science and technology studies, it has yet to be applied towards a more refined understanding of how the future of the modern agrofood system is being actively contested and (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  39. Veganism and Living Well.Christopher Ciocchetti - 2012 - 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. Meaningful omnivores (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  40. The Unjustified-Suffering Argument for Vegetarianism.Simon Clarke - manuscript
    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 would not (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41. “Pets or Meat”? Ethics and Domestic Animals. Clement - 2011 - Journal of Animal Ethics 1 (1):46.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42. Andrew F. Smith, A Critique of the Moral Defense of Vegetarianism. Reviewed By.Patrick Clipsham - 2016 - Philosophy in Review 36 (4):179-181.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43. An Anti-Commodification Defense of Veganism.Patrick Clipsham & Katy Fulfer - 2016 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 19 (3):285-300.
    We develop an anti-commodification defense of ethical veganism which holds that common defenses of ethical veganism can benefit from treating the commodification of non-human animals as a serious, distinct moral wrong. Drawing inspiration from Elizabeth Anderson’s account of commodification, we develop an account of commodification that identifies most uses of animals in developed countries as forms of problematic commodification. We then show that this position can make significant contributions to both welfarist defenses of ethical veganism and animal rights theories.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44. What's for Dinner?: Eating Well and Doing Good.Jonathan Cohen - unknown
    Our choices about what to eat have crucial implications for our stomachs, the welfare of animals, the natural environment, the arrangement of our society, our pleasure, and our health. So a lot is hanging on our decisions about what we eat. Moreover, these are not merely hypothetical ivory tower cases: every one of us typically makes these decisions (or has them made on our behalf) several times daily!
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45. Vexing Nature? On the Ethical Case Against Agricultural Biotechnology.L. Comstock Gary - 2000 - Boston: Kluwer.
  46. Concerning Cattle: Behavioral and Neuroscientific Evidence for Pain, Desire, and Self-Consciousness.Gary Comstock - 2017 - In Anne Barnhill, Mark Budolfson & Tyler Doggett (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Food Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 139-169.
    Should people include beef in their diet? This chapter argues that the answer is “no” by reviewing what is known and not known about the presence in cattle of three psychological traits: pain, desire, and self-consciousness. On the basis of behavioral and neuroanatomical evidence, the chapter argues that cattle are sentient beings who have things they want to do in the proximal future, but they are not self-conscious. The piece rebuts three important objections: that cattle have injury information but not (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47. Far-Persons.Gary Comstock - 2017 - In Andrew Woodhall & Gabriel Garmendia da Trindade (eds.), Ethical and Political Approaches to Nonhuman Animal Issues. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 39-71.
    In his chapter, Gary Comstock introduces the notion of far-persons. Following Gary Varner, Comstock distinguishes near-persons, animals with a " robust autonoetic consciousness " but lacking an adult human's " biographical sense of self, " from the merely sentient, those animals living " entirely in the present. " Comstock notes the possibility of a third class. Far-persons, he argues, lack a biographical sense of self, possess a weak autonoetic consciousness, and are able to travel mentally through time a distance that (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48. La Mettrie's Objection: Humans Act Like Animals.Gary Comstock - 2016 - In Gary Comstock & Mylan Engel Jr (eds.), The Moral Rights of Animals. Lanham, MD: Lexington. pp. 175-198.
    A common view of nonhuman animals is that they lack rights because they lack conscious control over themselves. Two thoughts put pressure on this view. First, we recognize the rights of radically cognitively limited humans even though they lack conscious control over themselves. So it would seem mere prejudice to deny rights to nonhuman mammals on the grounds that animals lack autonomy. Tom Regan has been the most eloquent, powerful, and resolute defender of this thought. Second, evidence is growing that (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49. Changing One's Mind on Moral Matters.Christopher Cowley - 2005 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 8 (3):277 - 290.
    Contemporary moral philosophy assumes an account of what it means to legitimately change one’s mind in ethics, and I wish to challenge this account by enlarging the category of the legitimate. I am just as eager to avoid illegitimate mind-changing brought on by deceit or brainwashing, but I claim that legitimacy should be defined in terms of transparency of method. A social reformer should not be embarrassed to admit that he acquired many beliefs about justice while reading Dickens. As such, (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  50. Fetishized Meat: Asserting Power Over Animals.Stephanie Cram - 2009 - Gnosis 10 (3):1-8.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 328