Paul Bali
Ryerson University
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.
Keywords Animal Ethics  Animal Rights  Animism  Ecologic Ethics  Andrew Smith  Plant Sentience
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

In Defense of Eating Vegan.Stijn Bruers - 2015 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (4):705-717.
Justification of Animal Rights Claim.Azam Golam - 2009 - Philosophy and Progress 43 (2):139-152.
A Carnivorous Rejoinder to Bruers and Erdös.Timothy Hsiao - 2015 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (6):1127-1138.
Activism as Integrity. [REVIEW]Joel Marks - 2008 - Philosophy Now (67):44-45.
In Defense of Eating Meat.Timothy Hsiao - 2015 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (2):277-291.
Raising the Bar in the Justification of Animal Research. Galgut - 2015 - Journal of Animal Ethics 5 (1):5-19,.


Added to PP index

Total views
188 ( #51,657 of 2,421,806 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
12 ( #57,446 of 2,421,806 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes