Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (6):573-597 (2009)
In this paper, I provide some evidence for the view that a common charge against those who adopt vegetarianism is that they would be sentimental. I argue that this charge is pressed frequently by those who adopt moral absolutism, a position that I reject, before exploring the question if vegetarianism might make sense. I discuss three concerns that might motivate those who adopt vegetarian diets, including a concern with the human health and environmental costs of some alternative diets, a concern about inflicting pain on animals, and a concern with the killing of animals. While I argue that vegetarianism does not make sense in some situations, I hope that this paper shows that there are many good reasons why the adoption of vegetarian, and—even more so—vegan diets might be appropriate in some situations. In carving out this position, I focus primarily on the question whether a morally relevant distinction between the killing of plants and the killing of animals should be made. I engage primarily with the views of two of the most prominent authors on this issue, arguing that neither Peter Singer nor Tom Regan provide a satisfactory account on the ethics of killing nonhuman organisms. Two views are challenged in particular, the view that relatively simple animals such as molluscs, as well as plants, lack awareness, and the view that animals without a preference to continue living stand to lose little or nothing by being killed. I provide some evidence to support the claim that many share my view that it is more problematic to kill animals than to kill plants, before analyzing why some suppress the negative feelings they associate with killing animals. By exploring these issues I hope to shed some light on the issue of whether the feelings of those who adopt vegetarianism are sentimental or make sense, and to stimulate reflection amongst those with an interest in food ethics.
|Keywords||Animals Diet Ethics Food Rights Veganism Vegetarianism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics.Paul W. Taylor - 2011 - Princeton University Press.
The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan - 2009 - In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Noûs. Oxford University Press. pp. 425-434.
Moral Status: Obligations to Persons and Other Living Things.Mary Anne Warren - 1997 - Clarendon Press.
Citations of this work BETA
What Policy Should Be Adopted to Curtail the Negative Global Health Impacts Associated with the Consumption of Farmed Animal Products? [REVIEW]Jan Deckers - 2010 - Res Publica 16 (1):57-72.
Obesity, Public Health, and the Consumption of Animal Products.Jan Deckers - 2013 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 10 (1):29-38.
Should Whiteheadians Be Vegetarians? A Critical Analysis of the Thoughts of Hartshorne and Dombrowski.Jan Deckers - 2011 - Journal of Animal Ethics 1 (2):195-209.
Saving the Polar Bear, Saving the World: Can the Capabilities Approach Do Justice to Humans, Animals and Ecosystems? [REVIEW]Elizabeth Cripps - 2010 - Res Publica 16 (1):1-22.
Similar books and articles
Who Can Be Morally Obligated to Be a Vegetarian?Evelyn Pluhar - 1992 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 5 (2):189-215.
Hierarchy and the Animals.Michael Forest - 2004 - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 11 (2):31-36.
On Vegetarianism, Morality, and Science: A Counter Reply. [REVIEW]Evelyn B. Pluhar - 1993 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6 (2):185-213.
When is It Morally Acceptable to Kill Animals?Evelyn B. Pluhar - 1988 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1 (3):211-224.
We Are What We Eat: Feminist Vegetarianism and the Reproduction of Racial Identity.Cathryn Bailey - 2007 - Hypatia 22 (2):39-59.
Food Fight! Davis Versus Regan on the Ethics of Eating Beef.Andy Lamey - 2007 - Journal of Social Philosophy 38 (2):331–348.
Added to index2009-06-10
Total downloads1,947 ( #177 of 2,158,921 )
Recent downloads (6 months)13 ( #27,341 of 2,158,921 )
How can I increase my downloads?