The moral footprint of animal products

Agriculture and Human Values 30 (2):193–202 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Most ethical discussions about diet are focused on the justification of specific kinds of products rather than an individual assessment of the moral footprint of eating products of certain animal species. This way of thinking is represented in the typical division of four dietary attitudes. There are vegans, vegetarians, welfarists and ordinary meat -eaters. However, the common “all or nothing” discussions between meat -eaters, vegans and vegetarians bypass very important factors in assessing dietary habits. I argue that if we want to discover a properly assessed moral footprint of animal products, we should take into consideration not only life quality of animals during farming or violation of their rights—as is typically done—but, most of all, their body weight, life time in farms and time efficiency in animal products acquisition. Without these factors, an assessment of animal products is much too simplified. If we assume some easily accepted premises, we can justify a thesis that, regardless of the treatment of animals during farming and slaughtering, for example, eating chicken can be 163 times morally worse than eating beef, drinking milk can be 58 times morally better than eating eggs, and eating some types of fish can be even 501 times worse than eating beef. In order to justify such a thesis there is no need to reform common morality by, for example, criticizing its speciesism. The thesis that some animal products are much worse than others can be justified on common moral grounds

Similar books and articles

Popular media and animals.Claire Molloy - 2011 - New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Animal rights: moral theory and practice.Mark Rowlands - 2009 - New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Human diets and animal welfare: The illogic of the larder. [REVIEW]Gaverick Matheny & Kai M. A. Chan - 2005 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (6):579-594.
So animal a human ..., Or the moral relevance of being an omnivore.Kathryn Paxton George - 1990 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 3 (2):172-186.
Animal welfare and animal rights.L. W. Sumner - 1988 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 13 (2):159-175.
Food fight! Davis versus Regan on the ethics of eating beef.Andy Lamey - 2007 - Journal of Social Philosophy 38 (2):331–348.
Animal rights: a very short introduction.David DeGrazia (ed.) - 2002 - Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Abduction and Estimation in Animals.Woosuk Park - 2012 - Foundations of Science 17 (4):321-337.
Animals and Sociology.Kay Peggs - 2012 - Palgrave-Macmillan.


Added to PP

789 (#16,595)

6 months
87 (#41,819)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Krzysztof Saja
Uniwersytet Szczeciński

Citations of this work

Moral vegetarianism.Tyler Doggett - 2018 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Is there a convincing case for climate veganism?Teea Kortetmäki & Markku Oksanen - 2020 - Agriculture and Human Values 38 (3):729-740.
Animal Killing and Postdomestic Meat Production.Istvan Praet & Frédéric Leroy - 2017 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30 (1):67-86.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Animal Liberation.Peter Singer (ed.) - 1977 - Avon Books.
The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan - 2004 - Univ of California Press.
The case for animal rights.Tom Regan - 2009 - In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Noûs. Oxford University Press. pp. 425-434.
The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan - 1985 - Human Studies 8 (4):389-392.

View all 16 references / Add more references