Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Arts and Humanities
Avoiding Anthropomoralism, Julian Friedland
Avoiding Anthropomoralism, Julian Friedland
Between the Species
The Montreal Declaration on Animal Exploitation, which has been endorsed by hundreds of influential academic ethicists, calls for establishing a vegan economy by banning what it refers to as all unnecessary animal suffering, including fishing. It does so by appeal to the moral principle of equal consideration of comparable interests. I argue that this principle is misapplied by discounting morally relevant cognitive capacities of self-conscious and volitional personhood as distinguished from merely sentient non-personhood. I describe it as a kind of anthropomorphizing moralism which I call anthropomoralism, defined as the tendency to project morally relevant characteristics of personhood onto merely …
A Review Of Dan C. Shahar’S Why It's Ok To Eat Meat And Per Bauhn’S Animal Suffering, Human Rights, And The Virtue Of Justice, Josh Milburn
A Review Of Dan C. Shahar’S Why It's Ok To Eat Meat And Per Bauhn’S Animal Suffering, Human Rights, And The Virtue Of Justice, Josh Milburn
Between the Species
It’s tricky to find decent defences of meat-eating of the kind practiced by most westerners. I was thus intrigued to pick up two short books defending meat-eating. Dan Shahar’s Why It’s Ok to Eat Meat (2022) is in Routledge’s series of short books called Why It's OK: The Ethics and Aesthetics of How We Live. Per Bauhn’s Animal Suffering, Human Rights, and the Virtue of Justice (2023) is from Palgrave Pivot, which publishes books falling somewhere between journal articles and monographs. Shahar’s book is worth reading: it’s well-written, raising interesting questions, and offering a coherent defence of meat. Bauhn’s book …
Review Of Andy Lamey's Duty And The Beast: Should We Eat Meat In The Name Of Animal Rights?, Angus Taylor
Review Of Andy Lamey's Duty And The Beast: Should We Eat Meat In The Name Of Animal Rights?, Angus Taylor
Between the Species
In Duty and the Beast, Andy Lamey confronts arguments for what he calls new omnivorism – recent arguments that profess to undermine the moral injunction against eating meat that is so prominent in the animal protection (animal rights) movement. Instead of rejecting animal protection as such, the new critics claim that in the pursuit of this objective the consumption of some meat is permissible or even obligatory.
Heganism, Thomas E. Randall
Heganism, Thomas E. Randall
Between the Species
An emblematic association exists between meat consumption and the gender identity hegemonic masculinity. This association is so strong that men who pursue meatless diets (especially vegans) are likely to be socially ostracized. Heganism is a diet/gender identity that aims to reconstruct hegemonic masculinity with the goal of removing these stigmas attached to male veganism. Yet heganism fails to do this, and, in fact, worsens the marginalization of male vegans. Therefore, heganism ought to be rejected. Instead, an alternative option for reducing the marginalization of male vegans could be found in the emergent literature on non-hegemonic masculinities. By rejecting hegemonic …
Dialogues On Ethical Vegetarianism, Michael Huemer
Dialogues On Ethical Vegetarianism, Michael Huemer
Between the Species
Two philosophy students, M and V, discuss the ethics of meat consumption. Standard arguments on both sides are reviewed, with emphasis on the argument that meat-consumption is wrong because it supports extreme cruelty. M and V also address such questions as how conflicting intuitions ought to be weighed, whether meat-eating is comparable to participating in a holocaust, why ethical arguments often fail to change our behavior even when they change our beliefs, and how an ethical vegetarian morally ought to interact with non-vegetarians.
Colb And Dorf On Abortion And Animal Rights, Mylan Engel Jr.
Colb And Dorf On Abortion And Animal Rights, Mylan Engel Jr.
Between the Species
In their recent book, Sherry Colb and Michael Dorf defend the following ethical theses: (1) sentience is sufficient for possessing the right not to be harmed and the right not to be killed; (2) killing sentient animals for food is almost always seriously wrong; (3) aborting pre-sentient fetuses raises no moral concerns at all; and (4) aborting sentient fetuses is wrong absent a reason weighty enough to justify killing the fetus. They also discuss strategies and tactics for activists: They oppose the use of graphic images by activists on tactical grounds, and they categorically oppose the use of violence by …
We Are All Noah: Tom Regan's Olive Branch To Religious Animal Ethics, Matthew C. Halteman
We Are All Noah: Tom Regan's Olive Branch To Religious Animal Ethics, Matthew C. Halteman
Between the Species
For the past thirty years, Tom Regan has bucked the trend among secular animal rights philosophers and spoken patiently and persistently to the best angels of religious ethics in a stream of publications that enjoins religious scholars, clergy, and lay people alike to rediscover the resources within their traditions for articulating and living out an animal ethics that is more consistent with their professed values of love, mercy, and justice. My aim in this article is to showcase some of the wealth of insight offered in this important but under-utilized archive of Regan’s work to those of us, religious or …
Review Of Steven Mcmullen's Animals And The Economy, Bob Fischer
Review Of Steven Mcmullen's Animals And The Economy, Bob Fischer
Between the Species
N/A
Review Of The Moral Complexities Of Eating Meat, Andy Lamey
Review Of The Moral Complexities Of Eating Meat, Andy Lamey
Between the Species
No abstract provided.
Animals And Causal Impotence: A Deontological View, Blake Hereth
Animals And Causal Impotence: A Deontological View, Blake Hereth
Between the Species
In animal ethics, some ethicists such as Peter Singer argue that we ought not to purchase animal products because doing so causally contributes to unnecessary suffering. Others, such as Russ Shafer-Landau, counter that where such unnecessary suffering is not causally dependent on one’s causal contributions, there is no duty to refrain from purchasing animal products, even if the process by which those products are produced is morally abhorrent. I argue that there are at least two plausible principles which ground the wrongness of purchasing animal products produced by morally abhorrent means. First, respect for the wishes and dignity of animals …