Authors
Mark Budolfson
Rutgers University - New Brunswick
Abstract
Many philosophers endorse utilitarian arguments against eating meat along the lines of Peter Singer’s, while others endorse deontological arguments along the lines of Tom Regan’s. This chapter suggests that both types of arguments are too quick. Empirical reasons are outlined for thinking that when one eats meat, that doesn’t make a difference to animals in the way that it would have to for either type of argument to be sound—and this chapter argues that this is true notwithstanding recent “expected utility” arguments to the contrary. The chapter then identifies a general puzzle: given that almost everything we do in modern society has some footprint of harm, how does one properly distinguish acts that are permissible among these from those that are not? The chapter explains why this is more difficult than it may initially appear, and it proposes a solution.
Keywords Peter Singer  utilitarianism  Tom Regan  deontology  harm
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Buy the book Find it on Amazon.com
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,464
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

Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism.Peter Singer - 1980 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 9 (4):325-337.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Consequentialism and Nonhuman Animals.Tyler John & Jeff Sebo - 2020 - In Douglas W. Portmore (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Consequentialism. New York, USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 564-591.
Moral Vegetarianism.Tyler Doggett - 2018 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Participation and Superfluity.Jan Willem Wieland & Rutger van Oeveren - 2020 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 17 (2):163-187.
Temperance and Eating Meat.Raja Halwani - 2020 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 33 (3-6):401-420.

View all 8 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

A Modest Proposal.Richard Hanley - 2004 - Public Affairs Quarterly 18 (1):1-12.
Moderation, Morals, and Meat.Frederick Ferré - 1986 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 29 (1-4):391-406.
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.
Save the Meat for Cats: Why It’s Wrong to Eat Roadkill.Cheryl Abbate & C. E. Abbate - 2019 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 32 (1):165-182.
The Mere Considerability of Animals.Mylan Engel Jr - 2001 - Acta Analytica 16:89-108.
Causal Inefficacy and Utilitarian Arguments Against the Consumption of Factory-Farmed Products.Moti Gorin - 2017 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30 (4):585-594.
Two Types of Debunking Arguments.Peter Königs - 2018 - Philosophical Psychology 31 (3):383-402.
Is It Wrong to Eat Animals?Loren Lomasky - 2013 - Social Philosophy and Policy 30 (1-2):177-200.
A Paradox for Weak Deontology.Michael Huemer - 2009 - Utilitas 21 (4):464-477.
On Eating Animals: Michael B. Gill.Michael B. Gill - 2013 - Social Philosophy and Policy 30 (1-2):201-207.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-05-20

Total views
196 ( #60,613 of 2,520,757 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
37 ( #23,467 of 2,520,757 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes