Consumers, Boycotts, and Non-Human Animals

Buffalo Environmental Law Journal 12:123-94 (2005)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Considers the ways in which alternative moral positions—consequentialism, natural law theory (adjusted to incorporate recognition of non-human animals' moral standing), and Stephen Clark's version of Aristotelian virtue ethics—respond to the question whether a boycott of the meat industry is morally obligatory. Investigates the likely responses of the various positions to a range of casuistic concerns.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,075

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Animals in Classical and Late Antique Philosophy.Stephen R. L. Clark - 2011 - In Tom Beauchamp & Raymond Frey (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. Oxford University Press.
Stephen RL Clark. Animals and their Moral Standing.S. Bostock - 1998 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 15 (3):301-302.
Boycott Basics: Moral Guidelines for Corporate Decision Making.Mary Lyn Stoll - 2009 - Journal of Business Ethics 84 (S1):3 - 10.
The moral status of animals.Stephen R. L. Clark - 1977 - New York: Oxford University Press.
The nature of the beast: are animals moral?Stephen R. L. Clark (ed.) - 1982 - New York: Oxford University Press.
The rights of wild things.Stephen R. L. Clark - 1979 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 22 (1-4):171 – 188.


Added to PP


6 months

Historical graph of downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Gary Chartier
La Sierra University

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references