Should Whiteheadians Be Vegetarians? A Critical Analysis of the Thoughts of Whitehead, Birch, Cobb, and McDaniel

Journal of Animal Ethics 1 (1):80-92 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article addresses the question whether Whiteheadians should be vegetarians in two ways. First, I question whether Whitehead should have been a vegetarian to be consistent, arguing that his omnivorous diet was inconsistent with his own philosophy. Second, I evaluate the works of three distinguished Whiteheadian philosophers on the ethics of vegetarianism. I argue that Charles Birch, John Cobb, and Jay McDaniel have prioritized animals justifiably over other organisms, yet that Birch and Cobb fail to do justice to the lives of other animals, and that the account provided by McDaniel fails to provide a convincing argument for minimal moral vegetarianism.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,283

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-02-02

Downloads
16 (#911,480)

6 months
5 (#648,018)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

References found in this work

Animal Rights.Jan Narveson - 1977 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7 (1):161 - 178.
Deep Ecology and Process Thought. Cobb - 2001 - Process Studies 30 (1):112-131.
Palmer on Whitehead: A Critical Evaluation.John B. Cobb - 2004 - Process Studies 33 (1):4-23.

Add more references