This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. The Argument from Brutalization The previous argument was based on an alleged indirect effect on human beings of not eating meat. People who do not eat meat for moral reasons tend to be less brutal than people who do eat meat.
It would remain true, of course, that the vegetarian diet is more limited, since every pleasure available to the vegetarian is also available to the carnivore (not counting the moral satisfactions involved, of course—which would be question-begging), plus more which are not available to the vegetarian so long as he remains one.
We had better therefore take the less complicated case of animals, which we commonly suppose not to be even potential moral agents. If we take the first view, we are implying that in order to have rights, just as much as in order to have duties, it is necessary to be a moral agent. It is not at all clear which is the true view.
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. In any case, which various political strategies would be most efficient for achieving humanetreatment of animals is an empirical question. The question arises: Why should such indirect causal influence have any moral import?
We pay lip service to more humanetreatment of the animals that we eat, but how many of us look beyond the label on the package of chicken cutlets? Doesn’t he realize that he does not have to engage in this voluntary activity, which causes moral conflict for himself and suffering for the animals?
I'm sure we could do a much better job of ensuring the humanetreatment of our laboratory animals--but at this point it's very difficult even to start the discussion. It "guarantees humanetreatment?" But there is a significant contingent who is not as enamored with the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act as he is.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 30+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content