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

Authors
Krzysztof Saja
Uniwersytet Szczeciński
Abstract
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
Keywords Animals  Animal Products  Animal Welfarists  Animal Rights  Ethics of killing  Vegetarianism  Veganism
Categories (categorize this paper)
Reprint years 2013
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10460-012-9402-x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

References found in this work BETA

Animal Liberation.Peter Singer (ed.) - 1977 - Avon Books.
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 - 1983 - University of California Press, C1983.
The Realm of Rights.Judith Jarvis Thomson - 1990 - Harvard University Press.

View all 15 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Is there a convincing case for climate veganism?Teea Kortetmäki & Markku Oksanen - forthcoming - Agriculture and Human Values:1-12.
Moral Vegetarianism.Tyler Doggett - 2018 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Animal Killing and Postdomestic Meat Production.Istvan Praet & Frédéric Leroy - 2017 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 30 (1):67-86.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Popular Media and Animals.Claire Molloy - 2011 - 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.
Abduction and Estimation in Animals.Woosuk Park - 2012 - Foundations of Science 17 (4):321-337.
Animals and Sociology.Kay Peggs - 2012 - Palgrave-Macmillan.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2012-10-23

Total views
538 ( #12,823 of 2,439,091 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
33 ( #22,648 of 2,439,091 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes