Movatterモバイル変換

The animal agriculture industry causes animals a tremendous amount of pain and suffering. Many ethical vegans argue that we therefore have an obligation to abstain from animal products in order to reduce this suffering. But this argument faces a challenge: thanks to the size and structure of the animal agriculture industry, any individual’s dietary choices are overwhelmingly unlikely to make a difference. In this paper, we criticize common replies to this challenge and develop an alternative argument for ethicalveganism. (...) Specifically, we argue that individuals should abstain from animal products because vegans, as a group, successfully reduce animal suffering, and individuals are obligated to participate in, rather than free ride on, this collective endeavor. Or, at the very least, individuals have strong reasons to purchase fewer inhumanely raised animal products—even if they are not obligated to go vegan per se. (shrink)

Direct download(5 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   4 citations  

I claim that there is pro tanto moral reason for parents to not raise their child on a vegan diet because a vegan diet bears a risk of harm to both the physical and the social well-being of children. After giving the empirical evidence from nutrition science and sociology that supports this claim, I turn to the question of how vegan parents should take this moral reason into account. Since many different moral frameworks have been used to argue for (...) class='Hi'>veganism, this is a complex question. I suggest that, on some of these moral frameworks, the moral reason that some parents have for not raising their child on a vegan diet on account of this risk is plausibly as strong as the reason they have for raising their child on a vegan diet. In other words, the moral reason I outline is weighty enough to justify some vegan parents in plausibly finding it permissible to not raise their child on a vegan diet. (shrink)

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   7 citations  

Proponents of the utilitarian animal welfare argument (AWA) forveganism maintain that it is reasonable to expect that adopting a vegan diet will decrease animal suffering. In this paper I argue otherwise. I maintain that (i) there are plausible scenarios in which refraining from meat-consumption will not decrease animal suffering; (ii) the utilitarian AWA rests on a false dilemma; and (iii) there are no reasonable grounds for the expectation that adopting a vegan diet will decrease animal suffering. The paper (...) is divided into four sections. In the first, I set out the utilitarian AWA in its original form. I give some background and I distinguish it from other, related arguments. In the second, I discuss the causal impotence objection, a popular objection to the utilitarian AWA. I explain how the objection works by means of a conceptual distinction between consumers and producers. In the third, I explain how proponents of the utilitarian AWA respond to this objection. In particular, I set out in some detail what I call the expected utility response. In the fourth and final section, I use the three objections noted above to explain why I do not find this response convincing. (shrink)

Direct download(4 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   4 citations  

In their daily practices, many ethical vegans choose what to eat, wear, and buy among a range that is limited to the exclusion of animal products. Rather than considering and then rejecting the idea of using such products, doing so often does not occur to them as a possibility at all. In other cases, when confronted with the possibility of consuming animal products, vegans have claimed to reject it by saying that it would be impossible for them to do so. (...) I refer to this phenomenon as ‘moral impossibility’. An analysis of moral impossibility in animal ethics shows that it arises when one’s conception of ‘what animals are’ shifts—say through encounter with other animals. It also arises when individuals learn more about animals and what happens to them in production facilities. This establishes a link between increased knowledge, understanding, and imaginative exploration on the one hand, and the exclusion of the possibility of using animals as resources on the other. Taking moral impossibility inveganism seriously has two important consequences: one is that the debate aroundveganism needs to shift from choice and decision, to a prior analysis of concepts and moral framing; the other is that moral psychology is no longer seen as empirical psychology plus ethical analysis, but the contents of psychological findings are understood as being influenced and framed by moral reflection. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark   1 citation  

I will argue that vegetarianism is a better regulative ideal and a better form of pro-animal strategic protest compared toveganism. I begin by arguing againstveganism. I shall then turn to tentativeveganism.

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   9 citations  

Jewish vegan and vegetarian movements have become increasingly prominent in recent decades, as more Jews adopt plant-based lifestyles. In this book, scholars, rabbis, and activists explore the history ofveganism and vegetarianism among Jews and present compelling new directions in Jewish thought, ethics, and foodways. JewishVeganism and Vegetarianism asks how Judaism, broadly considered, has inspired people to eschew animal products and how those choices have enriched and defined Jewishness. It offers opportunities to meditate on what makes Jewish (...)veganism and vegetarianism particularly Jewish and to pursue the intellectual, religious, and historical roots of those movements. It also tests their boundaries, examines connections to other movements, and calls attention to divisions among Jewish vegans and vegetarians and to the resistance they have faced. In part one, "Studies," authors present Jewishveganism and vegetarianism in historical, literary, and sociological context: from the time of the Talmud until the present, in North America, Europe, and Israel, and among rabbis, chefs, artists, activists, punks, and farmers. Part two, "New Directions," is focused on contemporary currents in Jewish vegan and vegetarian thought. The authors represent the cultural, theological, and ideological diversity among Jews invested in such conversations and introduce prominent debates within their movements. As a whole, the volume presents a wide-ranging survey of the place ofveganism and vegetarianism in Judaism past and present. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark  

Many moral philosophers have criticized intensive animal farming because it can be harmful to the environment, it causes pain and misery to a large number of animals, and furthermore eating meat and animal-based products can be unhealthful. The issue of industrially farmed animals has become one of the most pressing ethical questions of our time. On the one hand, utilitarians have argued that we should become vegetarians or vegans because the practices of raising animals for food are immoral since they (...) minimize the overall happiness. Deontologists, on the other hand, have argued that the practices of raising animals for food are immoral because animals have certain rights and we have duties toward them. Some virtue ethicists remain unconvinced of deontic and consequentialist arguments against the exploitation of animals and suggest that a virtue-based approach is better equipped to show what is immoral about raising and using animals for food, and what is virtuous about ethicalveganism. (shrink)

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   12 citations  

Ethicalveganism is the view that raising animals for food is an immoral practice that must be stopped because of the harm it causes to the animals, the environment, and our health. Carlo Alvaro argues the only way to stop that harm is to acquire the virtues that enable us to act justly and benevolently toward animals.

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   3 citations  

Despite the strength of arguments forveganism in the animal rights literature, alongside environmental and other anthropocentric concerns posed by industrialised animal agriculture,veganism remains only a minority standpoint. In this paper, I explore the moral motivational problem ofveganism from the perspectives of moral psychology and political false consciousness. I argue that a novel interpretation of the post-Marxist notion of political false consciousness may help to make sense of the widespread refusal to shift towardsveganism. (...) Specifically, the notion of false consciousness fills some explanatory gaps left by the moral psychological notion of akrasia, often understood to refer to a weakness of will. Central to my approach is the idea that animal exploitation is largely systemic and the assumption that moral motivation is inseparable from moral thinking. In this light, the primary obstacle to the adoption ofveganism arises not so much from a failure to put genuine beliefs into action, but rather in a shared, distorted way of thinking about animals. Thus, common unreflective objections toveganism may be said to be manifestations of false consciousness. (shrink)

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   1 citation  

This paper draws on the account of second nature in Aristotle, Dewey and Hegel to examine the way in which norms become embodied. It discusses the implications of this for both the authority of norms and how they can be changed. Using the example ofveganism it argues that changing norms requires more than just good reasons. The appreciation of the role of second nature in culture allows us to: firstly, better conceive the difficulty and resistance of individuals to (...) changing norms because of the material resilience of norms, habits and customs in a culture. Secondly, it argues that the effective adoption of a new norm such asveganism or the behavioral change necessary to respond to climate change, requires not just more good reasons but the creation of material pathways in the culture in which those revised norms can be inhabited. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   2 citations  

With millions of animals brought into existence and raised for food every year, their negative impact upon the environment and the staggering growth in the number of chronic diseases caused by meat and dairy diets make a global move toward ethicalveganism imperative. Typi-cally, utilitarians and deontologists have led this discussion. The purpose of this paper is to pro-pose a virtuous approach to ethicalveganism. Virtue ethics can be used to construct a defense of ethicalveganism by (...) relying on the virtues of compassion and fairness. Exercising these values in our relations with animals involves acknowledging their moral value, thus seeing that they are not our property or our food. It is important to emphasize that this argument applies only to well-developed societies that need not rely upon animals as sources of food, clothing, and various by-products. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark   3 citations  

Human beings are getting fatter and sicker. As we question what we eat and why we eat it, this book argues that living well involves consuming a raw vegan diet. With eating healthfully and eating ethically being simpler said than done, this book argues that the best solution to health, environmental, and ethical problems concerning animals is rawveganism―the human diet. The human diet is what humans are naturally designed to eat, and that is, a raw vegan diet of (...) fruit, tender leafy greens, and occasionally nuts and seeds. Whileveganism raises challenging questions over the ethics of consuming animal products, while also considering the environmental impact of the agriculture industry, rawveganism goes a step further and argues that consuming cooked food is also detrimental to our health and the environment. Cooking foods allows us to eat food that is not otherwise fit for human consumption and in an age that promotes eating foods in ‘moderation’ and having ‘balanced’ diets, this raises the question of why we are eating foods that should only be consumed in moderation at all, as moderation clearly implies they aren’t good for us. In addition, from an environmental perspective, the use of stoves, ovens and microwaves for cooking contributes significantly to energy consumption and cooking in general generates excessive waste of food and resources. Thus, this book maintains that living well and living a noble life, that is, good physical and moral health, requires consuming a raw vegan diet. Exploring the scientific and philosophical aspects of rawveganism, this novel book is essential reading for all interested in promoting ethical, healthful, and sustainable diets. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   2 citations  

Narrowly understood,veganism is the practice of excluding all animal products from one’s diet, with the exception of human milk. More broadly,veganism is not only a food ethics, but it encompasses all other areas of life. As defined by the Vegan Society when it became an established charity in the UK in 1979,veganism is best understood as “a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude – as far as is possible and practicable – (...) all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment”. There are two main moral justifications forveganism, both of which rely on a common assumption: that sentience, i.e., the capacity to feel pleasure and pain, is the necessary and sufficient trait to be morally considerable. In what follows, I present these two justifications and a third one which, although less popular, captures some core intuitions among vegans. I then present a challenge faced byveganism and two arguments that reject it as discriminatory, and briefly conclude. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark  

This article discusses the assumptions that are necessary to derive the conclusion thatveganism - avoiding the use of animal products from conventional agriculture, hunting and fishing - is a moral duty. Using a formal-axiomatic framework, it is shown that twenty assumptions or axioms are sufficient to come to the conclusion. The argument is made as parsimonious as possible, using the weakest conditions, the most restrictive definitions and most reliable empirical facts. The argument assumes an antidiscrimination principle and a (...) weak basic right not to be used merely a means for someone else’s non-vital ends. It demonstrates that being a human is not morally relevant whereas sentience is a morally relevant criterion that meets the assumptions. If one does not agree with the conclusion thatveganism is a moral duty, logical consistency requires that one must be able to indicate at least one axiom that one rejects. The argument makes hidden assumptions visible and provides a framework for a review of the philosophical literature about animal rights and vegetarianism/veganism. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark  

Most people care about animals, but only a tiny fraction are vegan. The rest often think ofveganism as an extreme position. They certainly do not believe that they have a moral obligation to become vegan. Gary L. Francione—the leading and most provocative scholar of animal rights theory and law—demonstrates thatveganism is a moral imperative and a matter of justice. He shows that there is a contradiction in thinking that animals matter morally if one is also not (...) vegan, and he explains why this belief should logically lead all who hold it toveganism. Francione dismantles the conventional wisdom that it is acceptable to use and kill animals as long as we do so “humanely.” He argues that if animals matter morally, they must have the right not to be used as property. That means that we cannot eat them, wear them, use them, or otherwise treat them as resources or commodities. WhyVeganism Matters presents the case for the personhood of nonhuman animals and forveganism in a clear and accessible way that does not require any philosophical or legal background. This book offers a persuasive and powerful argument for all readers who care about animals but are not sure whether they have a moral obligation to be vegan. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   1 citation  

This article addresses tensions within the emerging field of animal studies, which have arisen in the process of trying to craft an ethics that is not grounded in humanist rights-frameworks, by--firstly--mapping how these debates are manifested and--secondly--positing Cary Wolfe’s concept of "affirmative biopolitics" as means of overcoming these conceptual rifts. Building on work that attributes these tensions to the influence of posthumanism, it argues that the embrace of posthumanist thought has marginalised critique by framing perspectives such as ecofeminism and critical (...) animal studies as irredeemably humanist. To counter this marginalisation, Wolfe’s recent work on biopolitics is used to create a much-needed conversation between these perspectives. Debates surroundingveganism provide a route into instigating this dialogue, due to it being a contested practice that crystallises the differences between "mainstream" and critical animal studies. This framing ofveganism not as a totalising practice but as a form of "affirmative biopolitics," however, is not solely intended to highlight affinities between apparently antagonistic perspectives, but offered as a contribution to broader debates about how a "posthumanist ethics" could be enacted in practice. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download(4 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   2 citations  

The paper proposes an anthropocentric argument forveganism based on a speciesistic premise that most carnists likely affirm: human flourishing should be promoted. I highlight four areas of human suffering promoted by a carnistic diet: (1) health dangers to workers (both physical and psychological), (2) economic dangers to workers, (3) physical dangers to communities around slaughterhouses, and (4) environmental dangers to communities-at-large. Consequently, one could ignore the well-being of non-human animals and nevertheless recognize significant moral failings in the current (...) standard system of meat production. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   1 citation  

This paper argues for ethicalveganism: the thesis that it is typically wrong to consume animal products. The paper first sets out an intuitive case for this thesis that begins with the intuitive claim that it is wrong to set fire to a cat. I then raise a methodological challenge: this is an intuitive argument for a revisionary conclusion. Even if we grant that we cannot both believe that it is permissible to drink milk, and that it is wrong (...) to set fire to cats, this leaves open the question of which of these judgments we should abandon. I consider and reject three strategies for addressing this question: more methodologically naïve moral theorizing, appeal to systematic normative theory, and attacking non-moral presuppositions. I argue that philosophically satisfying the resolution of the conflict requires debunking our grounds for belief in one of the conflicting claims. Finally, I argue that ethicalveganism is supported by consideration of the most salient debunking arguments available. (shrink)

Direct download(5 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   20 citations  

1 Timothy 4:1–8 is often used as a proof text againstveganism; this is especially true among certain fundamentalist Christian groups and conspiracy theorists. This article argues that a closer look at its linguistic, historical, and theological context reveals that Paul is in reality seeking to uphold the goodness of creation, as described in the first chapters of Genesis, against the dualistic proto-Gnostic creation story that saw the material world as evil. In this sense, 1 Timothy 4:1–8 appears to (...) be a point-by-point rebuttal of the proto-Gnostic view of creation, which is contrasted with the account in Genesis. In particular, the apostle is denouncing a harsh asceticism, and food restriction/deprivation, described as “bodily exercise,” which by severely mortifying the body sought deliverance from the material world. The article goes on to analyze ancient forms of asceticism as well as dietary patterns in the ancient Mediterranean in order to show how contemporaryveganism differs sharply from the kind of mortification that is being condemned. 1 Timothy 4:1–8 highlights how food, generally understood, and creation should be received with thanksgiving as they are both gifts from God, which were pronounced good. Furthermore, 1 Timothy underlines that true Christian holiness does not consist in the harsh mortification of the body but in an inner holiness based on love and faith in the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Ultimately,veganism, far from being anti-Christian, as God’s original ideal, can be seen as a sign of hope pointing to the coming of the Kingdom of God and the restoration of creation beyond all violence, suffering, and death. (shrink)

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

This book focuses on the increasingly popular phenomenon ofveganism, a way of living that attempts to exclude all animal products on ethical grounds. Using data from biographical interviews with vegans, the author untangles the complex topic ofveganism to understand vegan identity from a critical and biographical perspective. Shaped by the participants' biographical narratives, the study considers the diverse topics of family, faith, sexuality, gender, music, culture, embodiment and activism and how these influence the lives and identities (...) of vegans. It also highlights the hostility vegans face, and how this hostility functions in the everyday, and intersects with other aspects of their identity and biography, exemplified through 'coming out' and 'queer' narratives ofveganism. UnderstandingVeganism will be of particular interest to those engaged in the fields of biographical research, critical animal studies or more broadly with an interest in animal advocacy. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark  

This chapter examines the ethical case that can be mounted forveganism. Because there has been comparatively little discussion in ethics focused directly onveganism, the central aim of this chapter is threefold: to orient readers to (some of) the most important philosophical literature relevant to the topic, to provide a clear explanation of the current state of the ethical case forveganism, and to focus attention on the most important outstanding or underexplored questions in this domain. (...) The chapter examines the range of positions that deserve to be called ethicalveganism, and some of the types of reasons that philosophers can potentially appeal to in arguing forveganism. It then spells out the core of the most promising case forveganism, which argues directly for the wrongness of making animals suffer and die. The chapter then considers three ways of arguing from this conclusion to an ethical defense of the vegan lifestyle, which appeal respectively to the ethical significance of the effects of individual use of animal products, of group efficacy, and of complicity with wrongdoing. The chapter concludes by examining several neglected complications facing the ethical case forveganism. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   8 citations  

This article puts Buddhist moral phenomenology in dialogue with ethicalveganism to propose a new way of thinking about animal ethics. It first defines ethicalveganism and outlines Buddhist moral phenomenology before articulating what a moral phenomenological approach to ethicalveganism looks like. It then provides some examples of this approach to ethicalveganism in both Tibetan and Western settings to demonstrate its viability. It concludes by thinking through some of the implications of a moral phenomenological (...) approach to ethicalveganism and argues that moral phenomenology is an exemplary mode of understanding and establishing ethicalveganism. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

This chapter is written for an audience that is not intimately familiar with the philosophy of animal consumption. It provides an overview of the harms that animals, the environment, and humans endure as a result of industrial animal agriculture, and it concludes with a defense of ostroveganism and a tentative defense of cultured meat.

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark   2 citations  

This article presents an argument forveganism, using a formal-axiomatic approach: a list of twenty axioms are explicitly stated. These axioms are all necessary conditions to derive the conclusion thatveganism is a moral duty. The presented argument is a minimalist or core argument forveganism, because it is as parsimonious as possible, using the weakest conditions, the narrowest definitions, the most reliable empirical facts and the minimal assumptions necessary to reach the conclusion. If someone does not (...) accept the conclusion, logical consistency requires that s/he should be able to point at axiom on which s/he disagrees. The argument exposes hidden assumptions and provides a framework for an overview of the philosophical literature on animal rights and vegetarianism /veganism. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   7 citations  

In this paper I respond to Marcus William Hunt’s argument that vegan parents have pro tanto reasons for not raising their children on a vegan diet because such a diet is potentially harmful to children’s physical and social well-being. In my rebuttal, first I show that in practice all vegan diets, with the exception of wacky diets, are beneficial to children’s well-being ; and that all animal-based diets are potentially unhealthful. Second, I show that vegan children are no more socially (...) outcast than any other group. In other words,veganism does not harm the lives of children. Having considered several studies, I show that the moral reasons that vegan parents may have for raising their children on a vegan diet significantly outweigh the reasons for raising their children on an animal-based diet. Thus, I conclude that parents have a moral obligation to raise their children on a vegan diet. (shrink)

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   5 citations  

Veganism is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon. In addition to being viewed as a dietary choice, it is also studied in various disciplines as a cultural movement, lifestyle, or even as a climate change adaptation and mitigation strategy. Due to its complexity, there is a growing interest in studyingveganism through sociological lenses. The aim of this research is to provide a systematic overview of the current sociological literature onveganism. This analysis follows the PRISMA systematic literature (...) review protocol and includes academic articles published in English between 2000 and 2022. The study has been organised around 3 main research questions to reveal the scope and intensity of sociological research onveganism, its methodological aspects, and the conceptualisation ofveganism. The results suggest an emerging discourse ofveganism as a lifestyle movement and the orientation of studies toward qualitative research. A variety ofveganism concepts used in the sociological literature indicate the potential of different strands of research. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

I argue that many philosophical arguments forveganism underestimate what is at stake for humans who give up eating animal products. By saying all that’s at stake for humans is taste and characterizing taste in simplistic terms, they underestimate the reasonable resistance that arguments forveganism will meet. Taste, they believe, is trivial. Omnivores, particular those that I label meaningful omnivores, disagree. They believe that eating meat provides a more meaningful meal, though just how this works proves elusive. (...) Meaningful omnivores could find little in the philosophical literature to help them clarify and support their position until recently. A few philosophers have argued that our culinary practices involve something more significant than taste. I categorize these arguments into three kinds. They either argue that culinary practices are a form of artistic achievement, that our diet forms part of our identity, or that a specific diet facilitates honest engagement with the world. Each of these arguments connects some aspect of our culinary practices to living a meaningful life. I examine each argument to see if it can defend the meaningful omnivore’s position. In the end, I conclude that it cannot. Nonetheless, this argument has significant implications for the animal welfare movement. Given the intense suffering caused by contemporary animal agriculture, concern for meaning is not sufficient to justify eating meat and often dairy. Concern for meaning does, however, require that we look for ways to preserve and extend culinary traditions while making them more humane. (shrink)

Direct download(4 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   7 citations  

While moral arguments for vegetarianism have been explored in great depth, the arguments forveganism seem less clear. Although many animals used for milk and eggs are forced to live miserable lives on factory farms, it’s possible to raise animals as food resources on farms where the animals are treated more humanely and never slaughtered. Under more humane conditions, do we harm animals to use them for food? I argue that, even under humane conditions, using animals for food typically (...) harms animals by restricting their freedom. My argument raises an important question about the extent to which animals are harmed when their freedom is restricted. On one view, it is possible to restrict animals’ freedom without harming them so long as we don’t make them suffer. This view underestimates the value of freedom for animals. Even if animals aren’t made to suffer, restricting their freedom can harm them insofar as it deprives them of freely pursuing their enjoyments in life. My argument has implications for not only the ethics of using animals as food resources but also the ethics of using animals in zoos and circuses. I examine these implications and also consider what we should do with farm animals if we cease using them for food. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark   4 citations  

No categories

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark  

This paper describes a pair of dietary practices I label default vegetarianism and defaultveganism. The basic idea is that one adopts a default of adhering to vegetarian and vegan diets, with periodic exceptions. While I do not exhaustively defend either of these dietary practices as morally required, I do suggest that they are more promising than other dietary practices that are normally discussed like strictveganism and vegetarianism. For they may do a better job of striking a (...) balance between normative concerns about contemporary farming practices and competing considerations of life. Additionally, I argue that framing discussions in terms of defaults is useful for various reasons: it helps organize agreements and disagreements, it more accurately reflects the way people conceptualize their dietary practices, and it presents a more dialectically effective view. (shrink)

Direct download(4 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

This is a short piece offering a rarely-mentioned reason for ethicalveganism, which applies to cases in which not consuming animal products makes no practical difference to the animals (say, they have been bought by someone else and would be thrown away). The reason for not consuming animal products, regardless of the magnitude of the impact, is that doing so would be a betrayal: a betrayal of the animal who had to endure physical and mental pain, or whose life (...) was untimely ended, for making said ‘product’. This reason for not taking part in the consumption of animals, besides explaining these marginal cases, extends further and in fact contributes to the larger reason forveganism as such. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark  

Our research discusses how four main ethical challenges toveganism manifest in the context of Iceland.Veganism is becoming an increasingly popular lifestyle in many parts of the world, especially in OECD countries. Studies on the motivation for choosing a vegan lifestyle (which includes, but is not restricted to, following a vegan diet) include ethical considerations, dietary choices, personal health, taste, religious and political beliefs, or environmental concerns. Ethics plays a particularly important role, and as such,veganism (...) has become a central object of interest in recent conversations on animal rights and welfare among ethicists. Our analysis reviews four ethical challenges (i.e., the challenge of universality, demandingness, causal impotence, and the least environmental harm principle) in the literature that problematize the norms and rationale underpinningveganism and vegan discourse and discusses how each applies within the context of Icelandic society and geography. We conjecture that the particular economic, demographic, and geographic characteristics of Iceland indicate that being vegan in Iceland does not free oneself of having global social and environmental impacts on account of chosen dietary options. All diets constitute global systems that account for dependencies and opportunities, vulnerabilities, and strengths, which may challenge the assumption thatveganism is a more socially and environmentally sustainable dietary option within this particular regional context. (shrink)

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

ABSTRACT What is to be done when parents disagree about whether to raise their children as vegans? Three positions have recently emerged. Marcus William Hunt has argued that parents should seek a compromise. I have argued that there should be no compromise on animal rights, but there may be room for compromise over some ‘unusual’ sources of non-vegan, but animal-rights-respecting, food. Carlo Alvaro has argued that both Hunt and I are wrong;veganism is like religion, and there should be (...) no compromise on religion, meaning there should be no compromise onveganism. This means that even my minimal-compromise approach should be rejected. This paper critiques Alvaro’s zero-compromiseveganism, demonstrating that his case against Hunt’s position is undermotivated, and his case against my position rests upon misunderstandings. If vegans wish to reject Hunt’s pro-compromise position, they should favour a rightist approach, not Alvaro’s zero-compromise approach. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   2 citations  

In this article, I will argue that ethicalveganism can be understood as a form of quietism, as a quiet retreat from a world burdened by human moral failings and animal suffering. I will also show how this retreat, although quiet in nature, is both a legitimate and valuable form of genuine resistance to animal oppression. Positing ethicalveganism as a form of sociopolitical resistance to animal exploitation is not new, but thinking of it as a quietist retreat (...) and a legitimate and valuable form of quiet resistance is a different matter. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

This book examines the ethics, politics and aesthetics ofveganism in contemporary culture and thought. Traditionally a lifestyle located on the margins of western culture,veganism has now been propelled into the mainstream, and as agribusiness grows animal issues are inextricably linked to environmental impact as well as to existing ethical concerns. -/- This collection connectsveganism to a range of topics including gender, sexuality, race, the law and popular culture. It explores how something as basic as (...) one’s food choices continue to impact on the cultural, political, and philosophical discourse of the modern day, and asks whether the normalization ofveganism strengthens or detracts from the radical impetus of its politics. With a Foreword by Melanie Joy and Jens Tuidor, this book analyzes the mounting prevalence ofveganism as it appears in different cultural shifts and asks howveganism might be rethought and re-practised in the twenty-first century. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

Anarchism provides a useful set of theoretical tools for understanding and resisting our culture’s treatment of non-human animals. However, some points of disagreement exist in anarchist discourse, such as the question ofveganism. In this paper I will use the debate aroundveganism as a way of exploring the anarchist discourse on non-human animals, how that discourse can benefit more mainstream work on non-human animals, and how work coming out of mainstream environmental discourse, in particular the ecofeminist work (...) of Val Plumwood, can likewise benefit anarchist thought. Ultimately I will show that anarchism and some of the more radical strains of environmental philosophy such as ecofeminism can greatly contribute to each other and to Critical Animal Studies. (shrink)

Direct download   Export citation   Bookmark  

The relationship between humans and non-human animals has received considerable attention recently. Animal advocates insist that non-human animals must be included in the moral community. Consequently, eating meat is, at least in most cases, morally bad. In an article entitled “In Defense of Eating Meat”, Hsiao argued that for the membership in the moral community, the “root capacity for rational agency” is necessary. As non-human animals lack this capacity, so the argument runs, they do not belong to the moral community. (...) Consequently, harming non-human animals for human nutrition can be justified. In this short comment I would like to highlight some of the most important errors of the above argument, primarily from the perspective of a biologist. I conclude that assuming the existence of a mysterious “root capacity for rational agency” is a biological nonsense. It cannot be verified, and it only obscures reality. In my opinion, the greatest problem with Hsiao’s argument is that it tries to defend anthropocentrism, a view that has presumably been the very cause of the spoiled non-human–human relationships. Perhaps adopting a vegan lifestyle is a better solution than quieting one’s conscience. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   8 citations  

This article argues for limiting the definition of the term “veganism” to a minimal one that denotesveganism as the abstention from the consumption of animal-derived products, thereby treating it as a neutral term exclusively describing a pattern of action. As the practice ofveganism has become popularized, the promotion ofveganism and animal rights has gained mainstream attention, and scholarly research onveganism has proliferated, the termveganism has often come to be used (...) to denote an ethical or political position. We argue that this slippage from treatingveganism as a practice to treating it as a belief complicates and confuses both scholarly analysis of, and plain-language conversations about,veganism. We examine the history of the term, its different uses, and motivations individuals may have for arriving at vegan practice to show that there is no coherent basis for treatingveganism as anything other than a material practice. We argue that usingveganism strictly to describe practice is not only logically appropriate and conducive to more clarity in discussions and research aboutveganism, but will encourage clearer and more nuanced engagement with the ethics, activism, and everyday practices of vegans in all their variety. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   4 citations  

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’ (...) in animal ethics can offer fertile lenses through which to consider ethical puzzles about eating animals. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   3 citations  

A survey was administered during fall 2013 to 163 self-identified adult ethical vegans and/or ethical vegetarians in the United States to determine whether the respondents+ beliefs meet the definition of religion according to U.S. federal law. The data demonstrate that a majority of the surveyed group possesses beliefs concordant with the definition of "religion" according to federal statutes, federal judicial tests, and regulatory law. Since religion is a protected characteristic in U.S. law, and ethicalveganism meets various definitions for (...) religion, then ethicalveganism should be recognized as a religion and a protected characteristic under U.S. law. (shrink)

Direct download(5 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   6 citations  

The most compelling arguments for ethicalveganism hinge on premise-pairs linking the serious wrongness of factory farming to that of buying its products: one premise claiming that buying those products stands in a certain relation to factory farming itself, and one claiming that entering into that relation with a seriously wrong practice is itself wrong. I argue that all such “linkage arguments” on offer fail, granting the serious wrongness of factory farming. Each relevant relation is such that if it (...) holds between factory farming and buying its products, then it holds between some seriously wrong practice and economic transactions of an absurd number and breadth. Hence, all these premise-pairs would, if true, generate unacceptable moral overreach; each premise-pair contains at least one unacceptable member, and the linkage arguments for ethicalveganism fail. (shrink)

No categories

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   6 citations  

This paper argues for ethicalveganism: the thesis that it is typically wrong to consume animal products. The paper first sets out an intuitive case for this thesis that begins with the intuitive claim that it is wrong to set fire to a cat. I then raise a methodological challenge: this is an intuitive argument for a revisionary conclusion. Even if we grant that we cannot both believe that it is permissible to drink milk, and that it is wrong (...) to set fire to cats, this leaves open the question of which of these judgments we should abandon. I consider and reject three strategies for addressing this question: more methodologically naïve moral theorizing, appeal to systematic normative theory, and attacking non-moral presuppositions. I argue that philosophically satisfying the resolution of the conflict requires debunking our grounds for belief in one of the conflicting claims. Finally, I argue that ethicalveganism is supported by consideration of the most salient debunking arguments available. (shrink)

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   7 citations  

This paper has two goals. The first is to offer a carefully reasoned argument for ethicalveganism: the view that it is (at least typically) wrong to eat or otherwise use animal products. The second goal is to give you, the reader, some important tools for developing, evaluating, and replying to reasoned arguments for ethical conclusions. I begin by offering you a brief essay, arguing that it is wrong to eat meat. This essay both introduces central elements of my (...) case forveganism, and serves as one helpful model of a short ethics essay. In the remainder of this paper, I use the model essay as a target, to illustrate important strategies for developing objections to ethical arguments. I will also illustrate a range of important ways for the vegan to reply to these objections. You can use the models and skills I illustrate here in your own essays, and in your reasoned evaluation of ethical arguments. I conclude that the arguments and replies offered in this paper add up to a powerful reasoned case for ethicalveganism. You can practice the skills I illustrate here to deciding for yourself – in a reasoned way – whether my conclusion is correct. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   3 citations  

ABSTRACT Co-parents who differ in their ideal child rearing policies should compromise, argues Marcus William Hunt. Josh Milburn and Carlo Alvaro dispute this when it comes toveganism. Milburn argues thatveganism is a matter of justice and that to compromise over justice is (typically) impermissible. I suggest that compromise over justice is often permissible, and that compromise over justice may be required by justice itself. Alvaro offers aesthetic, gustatory, and virtue-based arguments for ethicalveganism, showing that (...)veganism involves sensibilities and virtues, and argues thatveganism involves a belief. Alvaro takes this to show that parental compromise is impermissible. I suggest that Alvaro’s arguments are implausible and that the shaping of a child’s sensibilities and virtues is an apt matter for parental compromise. (shrink)

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   2 citations  

Export citation   Bookmark  

In my paper recently published in a collection of controversial arguments in this journal, I argued that the same principles that are behind ethicalveganism also warrant antinatalist conclusions. I thus suggested that to be consistent in their ethical reasoning, moral vegans should not have children. William Bülow has kindly responded to my claims and offered a plausible reply, which, according to him, concludes that at least some moral vegans may resist antinatalism. In this short paper, I reply to (...) Bülow. (shrink)

Direct download(3 more)   Export citation   Bookmark   4 citations  

Journal of Social Philosophy, EarlyView.

Direct download(4 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

This article is a review of Carlo Alvaro's RawVeganism: The Philosophy of the Human Diet. Alvaro offers interesting and novel arguments in support of rawveganism, but they are of varying quality. RawVeganism relies too heavily on aesthetic-based arguments forveganism, which are inadequate for the task of motivating ethicalveganism. At several points throughout the book, Alvaro tries to cultivate psychological aversion to animal products (e.g., describing eggs as coming out of the (...) “rear end” of an animal) as a means of promotingveganism when, in fact, a more careful philosophical argument is required. Despite certain shortcomings, which are pointed out in this review, RawVeganism makes a valuable contribution to the literature and encourages the reader to think more critically about the merits of a raw diet. (shrink)

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark  

Direct download(2 more)   Export citation   Bookmark