21 found
Order:
See also
Josh Milburn
University of Sheffield
  1.  65
    Chewing Over In Vitro Meat: Animal Ethics, Cannibalism and Social Progress.Josh Milburn - 2016 - Res Publica 22 (3):249-265.
    Despite its potential for radically reducing the harm inflicted on nonhuman animals in the pursuit of food, there are a number of objections grounded in animal ethics to the development of in vitro meat. In this paper, I defend the possibility against three such concerns. I suggest that worries about reinforcing ideas of flesh as food and worries about the use of nonhuman animals in the production of in vitro meat can be overcome through appropriate safeguards and a fuller understanding (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  2.  79
    Rabbits, Stoats and the Predator Problem: Why a Strong Animal Rights Position Need Not Call for Human Intervention to Protect Prey From Predators.Josh Milburn - 2015 - Res Publica 21 (3):273-289.
    Animal rights positions face the ‘predator problem’: the suggestion that if the rights of nonhuman animals are to be protected, then we are obliged to interfere in natural ecosystems to protect prey from predators. Generally, rather than embracing this conclusion, animal ethicists have rejected it, basing this objection on a number of different arguments. This paper considers but challenges three such arguments, before defending a fourth possibility. Rejected are Peter Singer’s suggestion that interference will lead to more harm than good, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  3.  38
    The Demandingness of Nozick’s ‘Lockean’ Proviso.Josh Milburn - 2016 - European Journal of Political Theory 15 (3):276-292.
    Interpreters of Robert Nozick’s political philosophy fall into two broad groups concerning his application of the ‘Lockean proviso’. Some read his argument in an undemanding way: individual instances of ownership which make people worse off than they would have been in a world without any ownership are unjust. Others read the argument in a demanding way: individual instances of ownership which make people worse off than they would have been in a world without that particular ownership are unjust. While I (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  4.  25
    Death-Free Dairy? The Ethics of Clean Milk.Josh Milburn - 2018 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31 (2):261-279.
    The possibility of “clean milk”—dairy produced without the need for cows—has been championed by several charities, companies, and individuals. One can ask how those critical of the contemporary dairy industry, including especially vegans and others sympathetic to animal rights, should respond to this prospect. In this paper, I explore three kinds of challenges that such people may have to clean milk: first, that producing clean milk fails to respect animals; second, that humans should not consume dairy products; and third, that (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  5.  46
    In Defence of Backyard Chickens.Bob Fischer & Josh Milburn - 2017 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 36 (1):108-123.
    Suppose that animals have rights. If so, may you go down to your local farm store, buy some chicks, raise them in your backyard, and eat their eggs? You wouldn't think so. But we argue, to the contrary, that you may. Just as there are circumstances in which it's permissible to liberate a slave, even if that means paying into a corrupt system, so there are circumstances in which it's permissible to liberate chickens by buying them. Moreover, we contend that (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  6.  5
    Should Vegans Compromise?Josh Milburn - forthcoming - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy:1-13.
  7.  8
    In Defence of Backyard Chickens.Bob Fischer & Josh Milburn - 2019 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 36 (1):108-123.
    Suppose that animals have rights. If so, may you go down to your local farm store, buy some chicks, raise them in your backyard, and eat their eggs? You wouldn't think so. But we argue, to the contrary, that you may. Just as there are circumstances in which it's permissible to liberate a slave, even if that means paying into a corrupt system, so there are circumstances in which it's permissible to liberate chickens by buying them. Moreover, we contend that (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  8.  9
    Nonhuman Animals as Property Holders: An Exploration of the Lockean Labour-Mixing Account.Josh Milburn - 2017 - Environmental Values 26 (5):629-648.
    Recent proposals in political philosophy concerning nonhuman animals as property-holders - by John Hadley and Steve Cooke - have focused on the interests that nonhuman animals have in access to and use of their territories. The possibility that such rights might be grounded on the basis of a Lockean account of property has been rejected. In this paper, I explore four criticisms of Lockean property rights for nonhuman animals - concerning self-ownership, initiative, exertion and the sufficiency of protection offered - (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  9.  31
    Not Only Humans Eat Meat: Companions, Sentience, and Vegan Politics.Josh Milburn - 2015 - Journal of Social Philosophy 46 (4):449-462.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  10.  3
    The Freegan Challenge to Veganism.Bob Fischer & Josh Milburn - 2021 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 34 (3):1-19.
    There is a surprising consensus among vegan philosophers that freeganism—eating animal-based foods going to waste—is permissible. Some ethicists even argue that vegans should be freegans. In this paper, we offer a novel challenge to freeganism drawing upon Donaldson and Kymlicka’s ‘zoopolitical’ approach, which supports ‘restricted freeganism’. On this position, it’s prima facie wrong to eat the corpses of domesticated animals, as they are members of a mixed human-animal community, ruling out many freegan practices. This exploration reveals how the ‘political turn’ (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11.  15
    Book Review: Joachim Wündisch, Towards a Right-Libertarian Welfare State. [REVIEW]Josh Milburn - 2016 - Political Studies Review 14 (2):252-253.
  12. Book Review: Marcel Wissenburg and David Schlosberg (Eds), Political Animals and Animal Politics. [REVIEW]Josh Milburn - 2016 - Political Studies Review 14 (3):427-428.
  13.  7
    Counting Animals in War.Josh Milburn & Sara Van Goozen - forthcoming - Social Theory and Practice.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14.  11
    John Hadley: Animal Property Rights: A Theory of Habitat Rights for Wild Animals: Lexington Books, Lanham, MA, 2015, X + 142 Pp.Josh Milburn - 2017 - Res Publica 23 (1):147-151.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15. Nonhuman Animals and Sovereignty: On Zoopolis, Failed States and Institutional Relationships with Free-Living Animals.Josh Milburn - 2016 - In Andrew Woodhall & Gabriel Garmendia da Trindade (eds.), Intervention or Protest: Acting for Nonhuman Animals. Wilmington, DE: Vernon Press. pp. 183-212.
    When considering the possibility of intervening in nature to aid suffering nonhuman animals, we can ask about moral philosophy, which concerns the actions of individuals, or about political philosophy, which concerns the apparatus of the state. My focus in this paper is on the latter, and, in particular, the proposal from Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka that nonhuman animals should be offered sovereignty rights over their territories. Such rights, among other things, seriously limit the occasions on which we might intervene (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16.  31
    Nozick’s Libertarian Critique of Regan.Josh Milburn - 2018 - Between the Species 21 (1).
    Robert Nozick’s oft-quoted review of Tom Regan’s The Case for Animal Rights levels a range of challenges to Regan’s philosophy. Many commentators have focussed on Nozick’s putative defence of speciesism, but this has led to them overlooking other aspects of the critique. In this paper, I draw attention to two. First is Nozick’s criticism of Regan’s political theory, which is best understood relative to Nozick’s libertarianism. Nozick’s challenge invites the possibility of a libertarian account of animal rights – which is (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17. Pet Food: Ethical Issues.Josh Milburn - 2016 - Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18. Ronald L. Sandler: Food Ethics: The Basics: Routledge, 2015, ISBN 978–0–415-83,644-9. [REVIEW]Josh Milburn - 2020 - Food Ethics 5 (1-2).
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  19.  7
    Should We Protect Animals From Hate Speech?†.Josh Milburn & Alasdair Cochrane - forthcoming - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies.
    Laws against hate speech protect members of certain human groups. However, they do not offer protection to nonhuman animals. Using racist hate speech as our primary example, we explore the discrepancy between the legal response to hate speech targeting human groups and what might be called anti-animal or speciesist hate speech. We explore two sets of possible defences of this legal discrepancy drawn from the philosophical literature on hate speech—non-consequentialist and harm-based—and find both wanting. We thus conclude that, absent a (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20. The Freegan Challenge to Veganism.Josh Milburn & Bob Fischer - forthcoming - In Ethical Diets and Animal Ethics — Beyond Extensionism.
    There is a surprising consensus, even among those who argue for veganism, that freeganism is permissible — that is, it’s permissible to eat animal-based foods that would otherwise go to waste. What’s more, Donald Bruckner has recently argued that vegans should be freegans. In this paper, we explore what the strict vegan can say by way of response. We offer a novel challenge to freeganism by drawing upon Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka’s ‘zoopolitical’ conception of animal rights, which supports, we (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  21.  9
    Zero-Compromise Veganism.Josh Milburn - forthcoming - Ethics and Education:1-17.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark