Results for 'Vegetarianism'

256 found
Order:
See also
Bibliography: Vegetarianism in Applied Ethics
  1. Vegetarianism, Sentimental or Ethical?Jan Deckers - 2009 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (6):573-597.
    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, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  2.  15
    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.
    The most popular and convincing arguments for the claim that vegetarianism is morally obligatory focus on the extensive, unnecessary harm done to animals and to the environment by raising animals industrially in confinement conditions (factory farming). I outline the strongest versions of these arguments. I grant that it follows from their central premises that purchasing and consuming factoryfarmed meat is immoral. The arguments fail, however, to establish that strict vegetarianism is obligatory because they falsely assume that eating vegetables (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  3. Vegetarianism.Mylan Engel - 2016 - Encyclopedia of Global Bioethics.
    Ethical vegetarians maintain that vegetarianism is morally required. The principal reasons offered in support of ethical vegetarianism are: (i) concern for the welfare and well-being of the animals being eaten, (ii) concern for the environment, (iii) concern over global food scarcity and the just distribution of resources, and (iv) concern for future generations. Each of these reasons is explored in turn, starting with a historical look at ethical vegetarianism and the moral status of animals.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  4. Dialogues on Ethical Vegetarianism, Part 3.Michael Huemer - manuscript
    A four-part series of dialogues between two philosophy students, M and V. The question: is it wrong to eat meat? M and V review the standard arguments plus a few new ones. Part 3 discusses the idea that creatures have different degrees of consciousness, the sense that certain animal welfare positions "sound crazy", and the role of empathy in moral judgment.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5. Dialogues on Ethical Vegetarianism, Part 2.Michael Huemer - manuscript
    A four-part series of dialogues between two philosophy students, M and V. The question: is it wrong to eat meat? M and V review the standard arguments plus a few new ones. Part 2 discusses miscellaneous defenses of meat-eating. These include the claim that the consumer is not responsible for wrongs committed by farm workers, that a single individual cannot have any effect on the meat industry, that farm animals are better off living on factory farms than never existing at (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6. Dialogues on Ethical Vegetarianism, Part 1.Michael Huemer - manuscript
    A four-part series of dialogues between two philosophy students, M and V. The question: is it wrong to eat meat? M and V review the standard arguments plus a few new ones. Part 1 discusses the suffering caused by factory farming, and how one's intelligence affects the badness of suffering.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7. Is Vegetarianism Healthy for Children?Nathan Cofnas - forthcoming - Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition.
    According to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ influential position statement on vegetarianism, meat and seafood can be replaced with milk, soy/legumes, and eggs without any negative effects in children. The United States Department of Agriculture endorses a similar view. The present paper argues that the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics ignores or gives short shrift to direct and indirect evidence that vegetarianism may be associated with serious risks for brain and body development in fetuses and children. Regular (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8. Moral Vegetarianism From a Very Broad Basis.David DeGrazia - 2009 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 6 (2):143-165.
    This paper defends a qualified version of moral vegetarianism. It defends a weak thesis and, more tentatively, a strong thesis, both from a very broad basis that assumes neither that animals have rights nor that they are entitled to equal consideration. The essay's only assumption about moral status, an assumption defended in the analysis of the wrongness of cruelty to animals, is that sentient animals have at least some moral status. One need not be a strong champion of animal (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  9. The Consequences of Individual Consumption: A Defence of Threshold Arguments for Vegetarianism and Consumer Ethics.Ben Almassi - 2011 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (4):396-411.
    As a moral foundation for vegetarianism and other consumer choices, act consequentialism can be appealing. When we justify our consumer and dietary choices this way, however, we face the problem that our individual actions rarely actually precipitate more just agricultural and economic practices. This threshold or individual impotence problem engaged by consequentialist vegetarians and their critics extends to morally motivated consumer decision-making more generally, anywhere a lag persists between individual moral actions taken and systemic moral progress made. Regan and (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  10. On Vegetarianism, Morality, and Science: A Counter Reply. [REVIEW]Evelyn B. Pluhar - 1993 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6 (2):185-213.
    I recently took issue with Kathryn George's contention that vegetarianism cannot be a moral obligation for most human beings, even assuming that Tom Regan's stringent thesis about the equal inherent value of humans and many sentient nonhumans is correct. I argued that both Regan and George are incorrect in claiming that his view would permit moral agents to kill and eat innocent, non-threatening rights holders. An unequal rights view, by contrast, would permit such actions if a moral agent's health (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  11.  55
    The Commonsense Case for Ethical Vegetarianism.Mylan Engel Jr - 2016 - Between the Species: A Journal of Ethics 19 (1):2-31.
    The article defends ethical vegetarianism, which, for present purposes, is stipulatively taken to be the view that it is morally wrong to eat animals when equally nutritious plant-based foods are available. Several examples are introduced to show that we all agree that animals deserve some direct moral consideration and to help identify and clarify several commonsense moral principles—principles we all accept. These principles are then used to argue that eating animals is morally wrong. Since you no doubt accept these (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12. The Unjustified-Suffering Argument for Vegetarianism.Simon R. Clarke - 2009 - In Raymond Aaron Younis (ed.), On the Ethical Life. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 57-67.
    A major argument for vegetarianism is that eating animals causes unjustified suffering. While this argument has been articulated by several people, it has received surprisingly little attention. Here I restate it in a way that I believe is most convincing, considering and rejecting the two main justifications for causing suffering in order to eat animals. I compare it to some other prominent arguments for vegetarianism, and discuss a major objection to the argument which focuses on whether the animals (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13.  57
    Vegetarianism, Morality, and Science Revisited.Evelyn Pluhar - 1994 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):77-82.
    Professor Kathryn George's Use and Abuse Revisited does not contain an accurate assessment of my On Vegetarianism, Morality, and Science: A Counter Reply. I show that she has misrepresented my moral and empirical argumentation.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  14. Moral Vegetarianism Vs. Moral Omnivorism.Seungbae Park - 2017 - Human Affairs 27 (3):289-300.
    It is supererogatory to refrain from eating meat, just as it is supererogatory to refrain from driving cars, living in apartments, and wearing makeup, for the welfare of animals. If all animals are equal, and if nonhuman omnivores, such as bears and baboons, are justified in killing the members of other species, such as gazelles and buffaloes, for food, humans are also justified in killing the members of other species, such as cows, pigs, and chickens, for food. In addition, it (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15.  17
    Moral Vegetarianism.Tyler Doggett - 2018 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  16.  15
    Environmental Vegetarianism: Conflicting Principles, Constructive Virtues.Daniel Mishori - 2017 - Law and Ethics of Human Rights 11 (2):253-284.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17. The Causal Impotency Objection to Vegetarianism.Aaron Champene & Don A. Merrell - 2008 - Southwest Philosophy Review 24 (1):53-60.
    Alastair Norcross has argued that there is no morally relevant difference between a person who eats meat and a person who tortures puppies in order to enjoy a certain gustatory sensation. We offer an objection to his argument.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18.  39
    Andrew F. Smith, A Critique of the Moral Defense of Vegetarianism. Reviewed By.Patrick Clipsham - 2016 - Philosophy in Review 36 (4):179-181.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  19.  8
    Environmental Vegetarianism: Conflicting Principles, Constructive Virtues.Daniel Mishori - 2017 - Law and Ethics of Human Rights 11 (2):253-284.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20. George Nicholson's on the Primeval Diet of Man (1801): Vegetarianism and Human Conduct Toward Animals.George Nicholson - 1801 - E. Mellen Press.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  21.  8
    Manipulating the Memory of Meat-Eating: Reading the Laṅkāvatāra ’s Strategy of Introducing Vegetarianism to Buddhism.Hyoung Seok Ham - 2019 - Journal of Indian Philosophy 47 (1):133-153.
    This paper examines vegetarianism in the eighth “no meat-eating” chapter of the Laṅkāvatāra with specific attention to how the sūtra confronts the previous dietary code and combats Buddhist resistance to the new doctrine. This study corroborates previous observations that vegetarianism in Indian Buddhism was a response to outsiders’ censure, rather than an expression of a specific Buddhist doctrine. It goes on to explore how the Laṅkāvatāra introduces a new dietary norm, one that was incompatible with the preexisting monastic (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  22.  61
    ‘Pass the Cocoamone, Please’: Causal Impotence, Opportunistic Vegetarianism and Act-Utilitarianism.John Richard Harris & Richard Galvin - 2012 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 15 (3):368 - 383.
    It appears that utilitarian arguments in favor of moral vegetarianism cannot justify a complete prohibition of eating meat. This is because, in certain circumstances, forgoing meat will prevent no pain, and so, on utilitarian grounds, we should be opportunistic carnivores rather than moral vegetarians. In his paper, ‘Puppies, pigs, and people: Eating meat and marginal cases,’ Alastair Norcross argues that causal impotence arguments like these are misguided. First, he presents an analogous situation, the case of chocolate mousse a-la-bama, in (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  23. We Are What We Eat: Feminist Vegetarianism and the Reproduction of Racial Identity.Cathryn Bailey - 2007 - Hypatia 22 (2):39-59.
    : In this article, Bailey analyzes the relationship between ethical vegetarianism (or the claim that ethical vegetarianism is morally right for all people) and white racism (the claim that white solipsistic and possibly white privileged ethical claims are imperialistically or insensitively universalized over less privileged human lives). This plays out in the dreaded comparison of animals with people of color and Jews as exemplified in the PETA campaign and the need for human identification (or solidarity) with animals in (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  24. Five Arguments for Vegetarianism.William O. Stephens - 1994 - Philosophy in the Contemporary World 1 (4):25-39.
    Five different arguments for vegetarianism are discussed: the system of meat production deprives poor people of food to provide meat for the wealthy, thus violating the principle of distributive justice; the world livestock industry causes great and manifold ecological destruction; meat-eating cultures and societal oppression of women are intimately linked and so feminism and vegetarianism must both be embraced to transform our patriarchal culture; both utilitarian and rights-based reasoning lead to the conclusion that raising and slaughtering animals is (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  25.  68
    The Naive Argument Against Moral Vegetarianism.P. Alward - 2000 - Environmental Values 9 (1):81-89.
    The naïve argument against moral vegetarianism claims that if it is wrong for us to eat meant then it is wrong for lions and tigers to do so as well. I argue that the fact that such carnivores lack higher order mental states and need meat to survive do suffice to undermine the naive argument.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  26.  20
    Ethical Vegetarianism: From Pythagoras to Peter Singer.Kerry S. Walters & Lisa Portmess (eds.) - 1999 - State University of New York Press.
    Selections are arranged chronologically, from antiquity to the present, and each selection includes an introduction. Appendices overview arguments against ethical vegetarianism. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  27. Deconstruction is Not Vegetarianism: Humanism, Subjectivity, and Animal Ethics.Matthew Calarco - 2004 - Continental Philosophy Review 37 (2):175-201.
    This essay examines Jacques Derrida’s contribution to recent debates in animal philosophy in order to explore the critical promise of his work for contemporary discourses on animal ethics and vegetarianism. The essay is divided into two sections, both of which have as their focus Derrida’s interview with Jean-Luc Nancy entitled “‘Eating Well’, or the Calculation of the Subject.” My task in the initial section is to assess the claim made by Derrida in this interview that Levinas’s work is dogmatically (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  28.  74
    A Catholic Case for Vegetarianism.Andrew Tardiff - 1998 - Faith and Philosophy 15 (2):210-222.
    Very few Catholics become vegetarians for moral reasons, and virtually no one would expect them to since vegetarianism seems to go hand in hand with views which are incompatible with the Catholic faith. The purpose of this paper is to show that the Catholic Church accepts principles-widely accepted by others, too-which imply a conditional, though broadly applicable, obligation to avoid killing animals for food. Catholic thinkers have not hitherto applied these principles to vegetarianism, but have long used them (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  29.  70
    A Rawlsian Pro-Life Argument Against Vegetarianism.John Zeis - 2013 - International Philosophical Quarterly 53 (1):63-71.
    Animal rights and vegetarianism for ethical reasons are positions gaining in influence in contemporary American culture. Although I think that certain rights for animals are consistent with and even entailed by the Catholic understanding of morality, vegetarianism is not. There is a plausible argument for an omnivorous diet from a Rawlsian original position. It is in direct contradiction to the Rawlsian-influenced ethical vegetarianism espoused by Mark Rowlands. Vegetarianism is not the moral high ground: ethical vegetarianism (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  30.  58
    The Vision of Vegetarianism and Peace: Rabbi Kook on the Ethical Treatment of Animals.Y. Michael Barilan - 2004 - History of the Human Sciences 17 (4):69-101.
    Rabbi HaCohen Kook’s essay on vegetarianism and peace, first published in instalments in 1903–4, and reissued 60 years later, is the only treatise in rabbinic Judaism on the relationship between humans and animals. It is here examined as central to his ethical beliefs. His writings, shaped by his background as rabbi and mystic, illuminate the history of environmental and applied ethics. A century ago, he perceived the main challenge that confronts reform movements: multiculturalism.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  31.  77
    Vegetarianism, Traditional Morality, and Moral Conservatism.David Detmer - 2007 - Journal of Philosophical Research 32 (Supplement):39-48.
    “Moral vegetarianism,” the doctrine that it is immoral to eat meat, is widely dismissed as eccentric. But I argue that moral vegetarianism is thoroughly conservative—it follows directly from two basic moral principles that nearly everyone already accepts. One is that it is morally wrong to cause unnecessary pain. The other is that if it is wrong in one case to do X, then it will also be wrong to do so in another, unless the two cases differ in (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  32.  86
    The Vagaries of Vegetarianism.Jonathan Harrison - 2008 - Ratio 21 (3):286-299.
    The following was meant to be a 'fun paper', which the author's honesty and natural seriousness of mind prevented from coming off well. Its main theme is that it is not wrong to eat meat provided the animals eaten are painlessly killed or – usually in the case of human animals – already dead. In the course of his remarks the author touches on: the bearing of affluence on vegetarianism ; animal rights; child eating; treating animals as ends and (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  33.  16
    Moral Vegetarianism.Brian G. Henning - 2016 - Process Studies 45 (2):236-249.
    In this article the work of a recent critic of moral vegetarianism is analyzed: Andrew F. Smith. Smith s work is significant for process thinkers who defend moral vegetarianism for various reasons. One of these is that he forces process thinkers to consider in more depth Whitehead’s view of plant ontology; another is that Smith adds insightfully to the conversation within process thought regarding the relationship between claims regarding animal rights and the ecoholistic concerns of environmental ethicists.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  34. The Unjustified-Suffering Argument for Vegetarianism.Ross Cameron - manuscript
    A major argument for vegetarianism is that eating animals causes unjustified suffering. While this argument has been articulated by several people, it has received surprisingly little attention. Here I restate it in a way that I believe is most convincing, considering and rejecting the two main justifications for causing suffering in order to eat animals. I compare it to some other prominent arguments for vegetarianism, and discuss a major objection to the argument which focuses on whether the animals (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  35.  12
    Against Rolston’s Defense of Eating Animals: Reckoning with the Nutritional Factor in the Argument for Vegetarianism.John Mizzoni - 2002 - International Journal of Applied Philosophy 16 (1):125-131.
    In his critique of a common argument in favor of vegetarianism, Holmes Rolston III does not sufficiently address the nutritional factor. The nutritional factor is the important fact that the eating of animals is not nutritionally required to sustain human life. Also, although Rolston’s criterion for distinguishing when to model human conduct on animal conduct is defensible, he applies it inconsistently. One reason for this inconsistency is that Rolston misplaces the line he attempts to draw between culture and nature. (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  36.  16
    We Are What We Eat: Feminist Vegetarianism and the Reproduction of Racial Identity.Cathryn Bailey - 2007 - Hypatia 22 (2):39-59.
    In this article, Bailey analyzes the relationship between ethical vegetarianism and white racism. This plays out in the dreaded comparison of animals with people of color and Jews as exemplified in the PETA campaign and the need for human identification with animals in ethical vegetarianism. To support the viability of ethical vegetarianism, Bailey resolves the dread of this comparison by locating ethical vegetarianism as a strategy of resistance to classist, racist, heterosexist, and colonialist systems of power (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  37. The Case for Vegetarianism: Philosophy for a Small Planet.John Lawrence Hill - 1996 - Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
    This clear and elegantly argued book examines from various philosophical perspectives the many reasons for adopting a vegetarian diet, from animal interest and rights, to health benefits, global ecology, and world hunger. The book includes a chapter responding to common objectives to becoming vegetarian and an examination of why, if the evidence in its favor is so strong, vegetarianism has not caught on. More comprehensive and more philosophical than previous books on the subject,The Case for Vegetarianism is truly (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  38. The Right to Vegetarianism.Carlo Prisco - 2016 - Hamilton Books.
    This book argues that vegetarian and vegan people should be guaranteed the right to eat according to their beliefs. The author claims that the right to vegetarianism is backed by the human and civil rights recognized in the constitutions of several nations.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  39. Dialogues on Ethical Vegetarianism, Part 4.Michael Huemer - manuscript
    A four-part series of dialogues between two philosophy students, M and V. The question: is it wrong to eat meat? M and V review the standard arguments plus a few new ones. Part 4 discusses what products one should renounce, the value of abstract theory, why people who accept the arguments often fail to change their behavior, and how vegans should react to non-vegans.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  40. Ethical Vegetarianism: From Pythagoras to Peter Singer (Review).Kathryn Paxton George - 2002 - Hypatia 17 (1):203-205.
  41. Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism.Peter Singer - 1980 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 9 (4):325-337.
  42. Rights, Killing, and Suffering: Moral Vegetarianism and Applied Ethics.R. G. Frey - 1986 - Philosophical Review 95 (2):277-279.
  43. Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism From Steven Davis's Omnivorous Proposal. [REVIEW]Gaverick Matheny - 2003 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16 (5):505-511.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations  
  44. Expected Utility, Contributory Causation, and Vegetarianism.Gaverick Matheny - 2002 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 19 (3):293–297.
  45. Why the Naive Argument Against Moral Vegetarianism Really is Naive.D. Benatar - 2001 - Environmental Values 10 (1):103-112.
    When presented with the claim of the moral vegetarian that it is wrong for us to eat meat, many people respond that because it is not wrong for lions, tigers and other carnivores to kill and eat animals, it cannot be wrong for humans to do so. This response is what Peter Alward has called the naive argument. Peter Alward has defended the naive argument against objections. I argue that his defence fails.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  46. Kant's Vegetarianism.Dan Egonsson - 1997 - Journal of Value Inquiry 31 (4):473-483.
  47. Deep Vegetarianism.Michael Fox - 1999 - Temple University Press.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  48. Reasonable Humans and Animals: An Argument for Vegetarianism.Nathan Nobis - 2008 - Between the Species 13 (8):4.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  49.  92
    Utilitarianism, Vegetarianism, and Human Health: A Response to the Causal Impotence Objection.Jeremy R. Garrett - 2007 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 24 (3):223–237.
  50. Vegetarianism and Virtue: Does Consequentialism Demand Too Little?Nathan Nobis - 2002 - Social Theory and Practice 28 (1):135-156.
    "Nobis argues that Singer's consequentialist approach is inadequate for defending the moral obligation to become a vegetarian or vegan. The consequentialist case rests on the idea that being a vegetarian or vegan maximizes utility -- the fewer animals that are raised and killed for food, the less suffering. Nobis argues that this argument does not work on an individual level -- my becoming a vegetarian makes no difference to the overall utility of reducing animal suffering in a context of a (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
1 — 50 / 256