DOCSLIB.ORG

The Moral Footprint of Animal Products

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Moral Footprint of Animal Products Agric Hum Values DOI 10.1007/s10460-012-9402-x The moral footprint of animal products Krzysztof Saja Accepted: 31 July 2012 Ó The Author(s) 2012. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Most ethical discussions about diet are focused Keywords Animals Á Animal products Á Animal on the justification of specific kinds of products rather than welfarists Á Animal rights Á Ethics of killing Á an individual assessment of the moral footprint of eating Vegetarianism Á Veganism products of certain animal species. This way of thinking is represented in the typical division of four dietary attitudes. There are vegans, vegetarians, welfarists and ordinary Introduction meat-eaters. However, the common ‘‘all or nothing’’ dis- cussions between meat-eaters, vegans and vegetarians Most ethical discussions about diet are focused on the bypass very important factors in assessing dietary habits. I justification of specific kinds of products rather than on an argue that if we want to discover a properly assessed moral individual moral assessment of eating products of certain footprint of animal products, we should take into consid- animal species, which I refer to as the moral footprint of eration not only life quality of animals during farming or animal products. While many animal protectionists or violation of their rights—as is typically done—but, most of abolitionists argue that at least people from developed all, their body weight, life time in farms and time efficiency countries should abandon meat eating or even the use of in animal products acquisition. Without these factors, an any animal products, their opponents criticize this claim assessment of animal products is much too simplified. If we and defend the common view of animals as producers of assume some easily accepted premises, we can justify a many goods for people. These ways of arguing are repre- thesis that, regardless of the treatment of animals during sented in the typical division into four dietary attitudes. farming and slaughtering, for example, eating chicken can There are vegans who refuse to use any animal products; be 163 times morally worse than eating beef, drinking milk vegetarians who do not accept eating any meat but con- can be 58 times morally better than eating eggs, and eating sume other animal products such as eggs, milk, or honey; some types of fish can be even 501 times worse than eating animal welfarists who do not condemn using animals, but beef. In order to justify such a thesis there is no need to try to minimize unnecessary suffering in farming; and the reform common morality by, for example, criticizing its huge mass of ordinary people who eat without remorse speciesism. The thesis that some animal products are much everything permissible by law. However, these common worse than others can be justified on common moral ‘‘all or nothing’’ discussions between meat-eaters, vegans, grounds. and vegetarians bypass some very important factors in assessing dietary habits. What I argue and what I don’t & K. Saja ( ) There are many philosophical disputes about the strength, Department of Philosophy, University of Szczecin, ul. Krakowska 61/69, 71-017 Szczecin, Poland justification, and content of animal rights. Animal activists e-mail: [email protected] and philosophers give different reasons why animals have 123 K. Saja moral status and should be treated properly. The most common premises we should accept that there are very common and important justifications for abandoning or important moral differences between animal products from carefully selecting animal products lie in condemnation of different animal species due to animal body weight and life unjustified killing of animals, using them merely as a duration in farms. means or causing suffering during farming. For these rea- sons, vegetarians refuse to eat meat and many animal welfarists fight for farming methods that increase respect The philosophical premises of the argument for animal rights or their standard of life. It is widely assumed that the animal well-being is an The first important premise of the argument is the platitude important moral factor. However, I argue that if we want to of common morality and the minimal claim of all animal discover a properly assessed moral footprint of animal activists. Roughly speaking, it says that animals are not products, we need to take into consideration not only the stones and for that reason they have at least some minimal life quality of animals during farming or violation of their rights. I hope that only someone who believes that animals rights—as is typically the case—but also their body weight do not have any moral rights or that their suffering or and life duration in farms. If we consider such commonly killing is morally irrelevant would not accept it. However, I neglected factors and assume some described in the next do not know anybody who defends such a view. Most section premises, we can show that regardless of the people (at least in the USA) admit that there are morally treatment of animals during farming and slaughtering, for better and worse ways of treating animals.1 The common example eating 1 kg of chicken can be preliminarily 163 belief that animals should have at least some minimal times morally worse than eating 1 kg of beef, drinking 1 moral protection can be specified in different ways due to average daily portion of milk can be 58 times morally different reasons for moral status of animals or badness of better than eating 1 average daily portion of eggs, and harming and killing. If someone believes that animals have eating 1 kg of carp can be 501 times worse than 1 kg of at least the right not to be killed without a good reason, she beef. Such conclusions undermine not only the common should accept the first version of the argument and the ‘‘all or nothing’’ discussion about animal products con- following simple premise: sumption, but also have very important practical implica- A1. It is morally wrong to kill sentient animals without tions for a state policy of minimizing animal harm, which I important justification. sketch later in the paper. The thesis that animal products from some animal spe- Different people can give different reasons to support cies are worse than others due to animal body weight and the above claim. Many just think—especially non-philos- life duration in farms will be justified regardless of the ophers—that unjustified killing is bad as a simple, intuitive, reason for enhancing animal rights or the assumed ethics of unanalyzable moral fact that does not need any further killing. In order to broaden my argument, I show that my explanation or justification. This fact is sometimes stated in conclusions follow regardless of which particular ethics of terms of a moral right to life: killing is bad for the same protecting animals is considered. Therefore, I am not going reason that it is bad to violate a right to life without to argue that one is sounder than any other. Instead, I important justification (e.g., self-defense). Some other present the argument in three different versions depending people may claim that the badness of killing lies in the on the three most common answers to the question ‘‘What death that it brings. In this case, killing is wrong because it are the main reasons to stop using animal products?’’ These steals a life and cannot be analyzed or reduced to the loss versions are entirely independent. In fact, I propose three of possible future goods or preferences satisfaction. Such a different arguments of the same structure but treat them as belief is sometimes associated with the thesis about the one and explain jointly. Thus, for example, if we consider sanctity of life. the first version of the argument we should take into account premises A1, B1, C, D1, E1, F1, the second ver- 1 In a 2004 survey conducted by researchers at The Ohio State sion premises A2, B2, C, D2, E2, F2, and the third version University, 92 % of Ohio residents agreed that it is important that premises A3, B3, C, D3, E3, F3. It is important to farm animals are well cared for, and 81 % said the well-being of farm remember that the premises with the same letter (e.g., A1, animals is just as important as the well-being of pets (Rauch and Sharp 2005). Furthermore, 95 % of respondents to a nationwide A2, A3) are not different expressions of one and the same telephone survey conducted by Oklahoma State University agreed claim but rather different claims that play the same role in with the statement: ‘‘It is important to me that animals on farms are the paper. To fully justify all of them individually is well cared for’’ (Lusk et al. 2007). In a 2005 survey of Michigan beyond my scope. Therefore, I will present only a basic residents conducted by researchers at Michigan State University, 92 % of respondents rated ‘‘humane animal treatment’’ as ‘‘very argument for their validity. The main thesis of the paper is important’’ or ‘‘somewhat important’’ as a factor when purchasing only a conceptual claim, mainly that if we assume such animal products (Conner et al. 2008). 123 The moral footprint The second version of the argument is based on a dif- A3. It is morally wrong to cause suffering to animals ferent type of ethics of killing because, even if we agree without important justification. that it is morally wrong to kill sentient animals without Every animal activist defends at least one of the above important justification, we can give other reasons for that assumptions. However, there is no need to be a moral thesis.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Animals Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal Volume 5, Issue 2
    AAnniimmaallss LLiibbeerraattiioonn PPhhiilloossoopphhyy aanndd PPoolliiccyy JJoouurrnnaall VVoolluummee 55,, IIssssuuee 22 -- 22000077 Animal Liberation Philosophy and Policy Journal Volume 5, Issue 2 2007 Edited By: Steven Best, Chief Editor ____________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS Lev Tolstoy and the Freedom to Choose One’s Own Path Andrea Rossing McDowell Pg. 2-28 Jewish Ethics and Nonhuman Animals Lisa Kemmerer Pg. 29-47 Deliberative Democracy, Direct Action, and Animal Advocacy Stephen D’Arcy Pg. 48-63 Should Anti-Vivisectionists Boycott Animal-Tested Medicines? Katherine Perlo Pg. 64-78 A Note on Pedagogy: Humane Education Making a Difference Piers Bierne and Meena Alagappan Pg. 79-94 BOOK REVIEWS _________________ Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal, by Eric Schlosser (2005) Reviewed by Lisa Kemmerer Pg. 95-101 Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust, by Charles Patterson (2002) Reviewed by Steven Best Pg. 102-118 The Longest Struggle: Animal Advocacy from Pythagoras to PETA, by Norm Phelps (2007) Reviewed by Steven Best Pg. 119-130 Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume V, Issue 2, 2007 Lev Tolstoy and the Freedom to Choose One’s Own Path Andrea Rossing McDowell, PhD It is difficult to be sat on all day, every day, by some other creature, without forming an opinion about them. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible to sit all day every day, on top of another creature and not have the slightest thought about them whatsoever. -- Douglas Adams, Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency (1988) Committed to the idea that the lives of humans and animals are inextricably linked, Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (1828–1910) promoted—through literature, essays, and letters—the animal world as another venue in which to practice concern and kindness, consequently leading to more peaceful, consonant human relations.
    [Show full text]
  • 219 No Animal Food
    219 No Animal Food: The Road to Veganism in Britain, 1909-1944 Leah Leneman1 UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH There were individuals in the vegetarian movement in Britain who believed that to refrain from eating flesh, fowl, and fish while continuing to partake of dairy products and eggs was not going far enough. Between 1909 and 1912, The Vegetarian Society's journal published a vigorous correspond- ence on this subject. In 1910, a publisher brought out a cookery book entitled, No Animal Food. After World War I, the debate continued within the Vegetarian Society about the acceptability of animal by-products. It centered on issues of cruelty and health as well as on consistency versus expediency. The Society saw its function as one of persuading as many people as possible to give up slaughterhouse products and also refused journal space to those who abjured dairy products. The year 1944 saw the word "vergan" coined and the breakaway Vegan Society formed. The idea that eating animal flesh is unhealthy and morally wrong has been around for millennia, in many different parts of the world and in many cultures (Williams, 1896). In Britain, a national Vegetarian Society was formed in 1847 to promulgate the ideology of non-meat eating (Twigg, 1982). Vegetarianism, as defined by the Society-then and now-and by British vegetarians in general, permitted the consumption of dairy products and eggs on the grounds that it was not necessary to kill the animal to obtain them. In 1944, a group of Vegetarian Society members coined a new word-vegan-for those who refused to partake of any animal product and broke away to form a separate organization, The Vegan Society.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sexual Politics of Meat by Carol J. Adams
    THE SEXUAL POLITICS OF MEAT A FEMINISTVEGETARIAN CRITICAL THEORY Praise for The Sexual Politics of Meat and Carol J. Adams “A clearheaded scholar joins the ideas of two movements—vegetari- anism and feminism—and turns them into a single coherent and moral theory. Her argument is rational and persuasive. New ground—whole acres of it—is broken by Adams.” —Colman McCarthy, Washington Post Book World “Th e Sexual Politics of Meat examines the historical, gender, race, and class implications of meat culture, and makes the links between the prac tice of butchering/eating animals and the maintenance of male domi nance. Read this powerful new book and you may well become a vegetarian.” —Ms. “Adams’s work will almost surely become a ‘bible’ for feminist and pro gressive animal rights activists. Depiction of animal exploita- tion as one manifestation of a brutal patriarchal culture has been explored in two [of her] books, Th e Sexual Politics of Meat and Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals. Adams argues that factory farming is part of a whole culture of oppression and insti- tutionalized violence. Th e treatment of animals as objects is parallel to and associated with patriarchal society’s objectifi cation of women, blacks, and other minorities in order to routinely exploit them. Adams excels in constructing unexpected juxtapositions by using the language of one kind of relationship to illuminate another. Employing poetic rather than rhetorical techniques, Adams makes powerful connec- tions that encourage readers to draw their own conclusions.” —Choice “A dynamic contribution toward creating a feminist/animal rights theory.” —Animals’ Agenda “A cohesive, passionate case linking meat-eating to the oppression of animals and women .
    [Show full text]
  • Stallwood Collection Inventory Books.Numbers !1 of 33! Stallwood Collection Books 19/10/2013 Angell Geo
    Stallwood Collection Books 19/10/2013 Aberconway Christabel A Dictionary of Cat Lovers London Michael Joseph 1949 0718100131 Abram David The Spell of the Sensuous New York Vintage Books 1997 0679776397 Acampora Ralph Corporal Compassion: Animal ethics and philosophy of body Pittsburgh, PA University of Pittsburgh Press 2006 822942852 Acciarini Maria Chiara Animali: I loro diritti i nostri 'doveri Roma Nuova Iniziativa Editoriale SpA LibraryThing Achor Amy Blount Animal Rights: A Beginner's Guide Yellow Springs, WriteWare, Inc. 1992 0963186507 OH Achor Amy Blount Animal Rights: A Beginner's Guide Yellow Springs, WriteWare, Inc. 1996 0963186507 OH Ackerman Diane The Zookeeper’s Wife London Old Street Publishing 2008 9781905847464 Adams Carol J. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical New York Continuum 1990 0826404553 Theory Adams Carol J. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical New York Continuum 1991 0826404553 Theory Adams Carol J., ed. Ecofeminism and the Sacred New York Continuum 1993 0883448408 Adams Carol J. Neither Man Nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals New York Continuum 1994 0826408036 Adams Carol J. Neither Man Nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals New York Continuum 1995 0826408036 Adams Carol J. and Josephine Animals & Women: Feminist Theoretical Explorations Durham, NC Duke University Press 1995 0822316676 Donovan, eds. Adams Carol J. and Josephine Beyond Animal Rights: A Feminist Caring Ethic for the New York Continuum 1996 0826412599 Donovan, eds. Treatment of Animals Adams Bluford E Pluribus Barnum: The great showman & the making of the Minneapolis, MN University of Minnesota Press 1997 0816626316 U.S. popular culture Adams Carol J.
    [Show full text]
  • Christianity and Vegetarianism 1809 – 2009
    EDEN’S DIET: CHRISTIANITY AND VEGETARIANISM 1809 – 2009 by SAMANTHA JANE CALVERT A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Theology and Religion School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion College of Arts and Law University of Birmingham June 2012 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT The vegetarian teachings of the Salvation Army, Quakers, the Seventh Day Adventists and other Christian groups have been largely neglected by academics. This study takes a prosopographical approach to the development of modern Christian vegetarianism across a number of Christian vegetarian sects, and some more mainstream traditions, over a period of two centuries. The method allows for important points of similarity and difference to be noted among these groups’ founders and members. This research contributes particularly to radical Christian groups’ place in the vegetarian movement’s modern history. This study demonstrates how and why Christian vegetarianism developed in the nineteenth century and to what extent it influenced the secular vegetarian movement and wider society. It contextualizes nineteenth-century Christian vegetarianism in the wider movement of temperance, and considers why vegetarianism never made inroads into mainstream churches in the way that the temperance movement did.
    [Show full text]
  • GANDHI‟S DIET and “THE OTHER” SIDE of ORIENTALISM By
    GANDHI‟S DIET AND “THE OTHER” SIDE OF ORIENTALISM by VINCENT E. BURGESS B.A., The Ohio State University, 2007 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Religious Studies 2011 This thesis entitled: Gandhi‟s Diet and “The Other” Side of Orientalism written by Vincent E. Burgess has been approved for the Department of Religious Studies Dr. Loriliai Biernacki Dr. Greg Johnson Dr. Mithi Mukherjee Dr. Hugh B. Urban Date 7/13/2011 The final copy of this thesis has been examined by the signatories, and we Find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards Of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. IRB protocol # __N/A______________ iii Burgess, Vincent Edward (M.A., Religious Studies Department) Gandhi‟s Diet and “The Other” Side of Orientalism Thesis directed by Associate Professor Dr. Loriliai Biernacki This paper examines the ways in which Gandhi‟s diet—his practice of eating meat as a young man in India, his associations with the London Vegetarian Society, his experiments in South Africa, and, ultimately, his important role in the resistance movement against the British Colonial project in India—functioned as an agentive means of constructing the subject via specific technologies of the self. It is my contention that the roots of Gandhi's social activism can be found in his dietetic practices, which were an essential component of his social philosophy as instigated, initially, as a young man in India, then developed in England, further refined in South Africa, and most famously applied in India.
    [Show full text]
  • The Vegetarian, a Monthly Magazine Published to Advocate Wholesome
    Southern Adventist University KnowledgeExchange@Southern The oodF ies' Guide to Vegetarian Cookery in 19th 1890-1909 Century America 1896 The egetV arian, A Monthly Magazine published to advocate Wholesome Living. Vol. II. The egetV arian Publishing Company Follow this and additional works at: https://knowledge.e.southern.edu/foodiesguide-1890 Part of the Food Science Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation The eV getarian Publishing Company, "The eV getarian, A Monthly Magazine published to advocate Wholesome Living. Vol. II." (1896). 1890-1909. 3. https://knowledge.e.southern.edu/foodiesguide-1890/3 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the The oodF ies' Guide to Vegetarian Cookery in 19th Century America at KnowledgeExchange@Southern. It has been accepted for inclusion in 1890-1909 by an authorized administrator of KnowledgeExchange@Southern. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS DDD137fl4ET5 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. (SMITHSONIAN DEPOSIT.) Shelf J-' ^^ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ©.^^a? .^*H?0 ^'^±!Z^^\,>^ THK Vegetariain, A Monthly Magazine published to advocate Wholesome Living. VOL. II New York: The Vegetarian Publishing Company, 40 John Street. INDEX. Advance of Civilization, 54. Alleged Divine Permission to Eat Every Moving Thing, 92. Animals, Diseases of Communicable to Man, 97. Best Food for Man, 87. Birds, Plea for Singing, 124. Blackhouse & Taylor's Witness for Christ, 76. Chauncey Roe, 82. Chicago Banquet, 72, 82. Clippings, 75. Diet, Ethics of, 147. Diet and Happiness, i. Diseases of Animals Communicable to Man, 97. Divine Permisson to Eat, Alleged, 92. Drink Crave, How to Cure, 4. Ethics of Diet, 147.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF – JCAS Vol 11, Issue 1 2013
    Journal for Critical Animal Studies Volume 11 Issue 1 2013 ISSN: 1948-352X Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume 11, Issue 1, 2013 (ISSN 1948-352X) Journal for Critical Animal Studies Editorial Executive Board Editor Dr. John Sorenson [email protected] Brock University Associate Editors Larry Butz [email protected] Rice University Dr. Lindgren Johnson [email protected] Independent Scholar Kirby Pringle [email protected] University of Southern California Dr. Vasile Stanescu [email protected] Stanford University Dr. Susan Thomas [email protected] Hollins University Media Editor Dr. Carol Glasser [email protected] University of California, Irvine Managing Editor Drew Winter [email protected] Institute for Critical Animal Studies Editorial Board For a complete list of the members of the Editorial Board please see the JCAS link on the Institute for Critical Animal Studies website: http://www.criticalanimalstudies.org/?page_id=393 Cover Art: Photograph from We Animals (www.weanimals.org) by Jo-Anne MacArthur, with permission. Special thanks to Dr. Cory Shaman for technical support with layout and design of this issue. 1 Journal for Critical Animal Studies, Volume 11, Issue 1, 2013 (ISSN 1948-352X) JCAS Volume 11, Issue 1, 2013 Issue Editors Dr. Lindgren Johnson [email protected] Dr. Susan Thomas [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS ISSUE INTRODUCTION ..………………………………………………………………… 5-7 ESSAYS The Voice of Animals: A Response to Recent French Care Theory in Animal Ethics Josephine Donovan
    [Show full text]
  • Animals and Religion
    Course outline for RLG 227H1S, Religion and Animals Department for the Study of Religion, University of Toronto Instructor: Paul York Course description This course examines animals in myths, legends, parables, and how animals figure into religious and cultural identities. It also examines the intersection of religious cosmologies, mythology, religious art, religious imagination, animal ethics, and environmental problems. The topic of religion and animals is a growing field of religious studies. Animals appear in numerous myths, legends and parables, as anthropomorphized symbols of human traits, as bearers of moral instruction, as agents of supernatural powers, and as divine messengers. Such questions as how to treat them properly and how human beings differ from them have helped define religious and cultural identities for millennia. In recent years scholars of religion have begun to bring together this corpus of material under a unified subject heading: religion and animals. This course provides an overview of that field, as well as trying to address some complex social and environmental problems that animals play a significant role in. As such it engages with the theories that underpin the animal liberation movement, which has been highly critical of the positioning of the animals within religions traditions. The course also exposes students to emerging theologies within many of the major traditions that argues for animal liberation as consistent with the tradition’s values. At the same time, the course provides counterviews to these theologies, and examines them through a system of ethical hermeneutics for interpreting scriptures. A recurring theme in the course is the tension within historical traditions with regard to animal welfare, as identified by Paul Waldau (see the Addendum to the Course Description, at the end of this document, for a longer description of this topic).
    [Show full text]
  • Shelley and the Nature of Nonviolence
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Doctoral Dissertations Student Scholarship Fall 2000 Shelley and the nature of nonviolence William James Stroup University of New Hampshire, Durham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation Recommended Citation Stroup, William James, "Shelley and the nature of nonviolence" (2000). Doctoral Dissertations. 2145. https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation/2145 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bieedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
    [Show full text]
  • Animals: Ethics, Rights & Law—A Bibliography
    Animals: Ethics, Rights & Law—A Bibliography By Patrick S. O’Donnell (2006) Department of Philosophy Santa Barbara City College This bibliography is not exhaustive, however, at least with regard to books, it well represents what is more or less available. I have included only a comparatively few number of journal articles, being far more selective here in order to keep the list manageable (less than 500 entries). Indeed, also toward that end—with a few exceptions—I chose ‘about 1980’ as an arbitrary cut-off date (thus one should not assume anything before that period is somehow without merit). Should you know of a book or article conspicuous by its absence (i.e. you’re fairly convinced of its high quality), please let me know: [email protected]. Some of the titles do not, strictly speaking, fall within the categories of ethics, rights, and law. In such cases, I’ve included them either because they touch upon presuppositions, assumptions or premises essential to this or that argument found in the literature, or, they are exceptionally lucid with respect to a subsidiary topic within animal ethics, rights, and law. Finally, the bulk of this list would not have been possible without the excellent bibliography in Angus Taylor’s wonderful book, Animals and Ethics: An Overview of the Philosophical Debate (2003). Acampora, Ralph R. ‘Extinction by Exhibition: Looking at and in the Zoo,’ Human Ecology Review 5: 1-4, 1998. Adams, Carol J. The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. New York: Continuum, 1990. Adams, Carol J. Neither Man Nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals.
    [Show full text]
  • The Freegan Challenge to Veganism
    This is a repository copy of The freegan challenge to veganism. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/174007/ Version: Published Version Article: Milburn, J. orcid.org/0000-0003-0638-8555 and Fischer, B. (2021) The freegan challenge to veganism. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 34 (3). 17. ISSN 1187-7863 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-021-09859-y Reuse This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence. This licence allows you to distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon the work, even commercially, as long as you credit the authors for the original work. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (2021) 34:17 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-021-09859-y ARTICLES The Freegan Challenge to Veganism Josh Milburn1 · Bob Fischer2 Accepted: 26 May 2021 © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract 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.
    [Show full text]