Utilitas 32 (4):398-415 (2020)

Authors
Cheryl (C.E.) Abbate
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Abstract
In his influential article on the ethics of eating animals, Alastair Norcross argues that consumers of factory raised meat and puppy torturers are equally condemnable because both knowingly cause serious harm to sentient creatures just for trivial pleasures. Against this claim, I argue that those who buy and consume factory raised meat, even those who do so knowing that they cause harm, have a partial excuse for their wrongdoings. Meat eaters act under social duress, which causes volitional impairment, and they often act from deeply ingrained habits, which causes epistemic impairment. But puppy torturers act against cultural norms and habits, consciously choosing to perform wrongful acts. Consequently, the average consumer of factory raised meat has, while puppy torturers lack, a cultural excuse. But although consumers of factory raised meat aren’t blameworthy, they are partially morally responsible for their harmful behavior – and for this, they should feel regret.
Keywords meat eating  vegetarianism  moral responsibility  animal ethics  blame
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2020
DOI 10.1017/s0953820820000072
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: 61,064
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

Culpability and Ignorance.Gideon Rosen - 2003 - Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 103 (1):61-84.
It's Not My Fault: Global Warming and Individual Moral Obligations.Walter Sinnott-Armstrong - 2005 - In Walter Sinnott-Armstrong & Richard Howarth (eds.), Perspectives on Climate Change. Elsevier. pp. 221–253.
Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases.Alastair Norcross - 2004 - Philosophical Perspectives 18 (1):229–245.

View all 12 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Vegetarian Meat: Could Technology Save Animals and Satisfy Meat Eaters?Patrick D. Hopkins & Austin Dacey - 2008 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21 (6):579-596.
Eating Animals and the Moral Value of Non-Human Suffering.Salim Hirèche & Sandra Villata - 2013 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 88 (1):247-256.
The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat.Ben Bramble & Bob Fischer (eds.) - 2015 - Oxford University Press.
In Defense of Eating Vegan.Stijn Bruers - 2015 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (4):705-717.
Against Blaming the Blameworthy.Bob Fischer - 2015 - In Ben Bramble & Bob Fischer (eds.), The Moral Complexities of Eating Meat. Oxford University Press. pp. 185-198.
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.
On Eating Animals: Michael B. Gill.Michael B. Gill - 2013 - Social Philosophy and Policy 30 (1-2):201-207.
Is It Wrong to Eat Animals?Loren Lomasky - 2013 - Social Philosophy and Policy 30 (1-2):177-200.
Vegetarianism, Traditional Morality, and Moral Conservatism.David Detmer - 2007 - Journal of Philosophical Research 32 (Supplement):39-48.
Is Eating Meat Ethical?Thom Brooks - 2017 - Think 16 (47):9-13.
In Defense of Eating Meat.Timothy Hsiao - 2015 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (2):277-291.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-04-06

Total views
67 ( #155,852 of 2,439,682 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
17 ( #41,406 of 2,439,682 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes