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
A third of a century ago, when the modern animal-liberation movement was in its infancy, Martin published an essay entitled “A Critique of Moral Vegetarianism,” Reason Papers (fall 1976): 13-43. You will, therefore, agree with Martin about moral vegetarianism but not about Christianity. Another reason is moral. Mine is not.
I foresee a day, perhaps not far in the future, in which it is illegal to raise cows, pigs, and other animals for food. Of all the ways of influencing behavior, rational persuasion is the most effective, the most secure (in the sense of long-lasting), and the most defensible from a moral point of view.
And there are two relevant kinds of alternatives here: one is treating the animals better before we eat them, the only disadvantage of which is that it would make meat considerably more expensive. For we must realize that the question is whether this justifies the eating of animals in comparison with alternatives.
There are two approaches a vegetarian might take in arguing that rearing and killing animals for food is morally offensive. He might argue that eating animals is morally bad because of the pain inflicted on animals in rearing and killing them to be eaten. Or he could object to the killing itself.
This is a moral principle, and states that 'the interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being'. According to Singer , the principle of the equal consideration of interests 'requires us to be vegetarians'.
The proposition outlaws raising pregnant sows in gestation crates and raising calves in veal crates , making Arizona the first state in the Union to ban veal crates. Since morally decent individuals oppose treating animals inhumanely for no good reason, factory farming is becoming an increasingly hard sell.
Beyond the environmental impacts of meat production there is a basic ethical issue involved. I suspect that meat consumption would decline dramatically under such a code; it would certainly make many of us less hypocritical. Dogs were bred to be companion animals; pigs and cows are raised as food.
According to Wikipedia, “A l owl ife is a term for a person who is considered morally unacceptable by their community” The local Nanhui shrikes are well aware that the word “lowlife” has an owl hidden inside, and mark the appearance of owls in their territory with harsh protests.
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. Not only are they killed in cruel ways, but it is well documented that they are raised in ways that cause them great discomfort and agony. Consequently, one ought not to eat meat until actual practice is changed.
Ethical vegetarianism is the thesis that killing and eating animals is morally wrong whenever equally nutritious plant-based alternatives are available. Causing an animal to suffer for no good reason is cruel, and our ordinary commonsense morality tells us in no uncertain terms that cruelty is wrong. Carruthers, The Animals Issue , p.
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. The Argument from Speciesism If there is some doubt whether the arguments from monkeys and from glass walls should be considered moral arguments, there can be no doubt about the moral import of the argument from speciesism.
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. SOME PROBLEMS OF MORAL VEGETARIANISM With respect to traditional moral vegetarianism some problems immediately come to the fore. What animals is it morally wrong to eat? But what is the extent of the universal moral principle?
It is asking the burger-stuffer to come clean ; to show just why it is that his greed should be indulged in this way, and just where he fits into the scheme of things, that he can presume to kill again and again for the sake of a solitary pleasure that creates and sustains no moral ties.
Indeed, our feeling of revulsion may be so intense that we simply can no longer bring ourselves to eat meat. What the vegetarian wants, surely, is that we should stop eating meat even if our liking for it exceeds our revulsion at the suffering endured on factory farms.
These birds can learn to pull a string to retrieve a short stick, use the stick to pull out a longer one, then use the long stick to draw out a piece of meat. Tika and her longtime mate, Kobuk, had raised eight litters of puppies together and were enjoying their retirement years in the home of my friend, Anne. Is this moral?
If the goal is not moral perfection for ourselves, but the maximum benefit for animals, half-measures ought to be encouraged and appreciated. Go vegan, go vegetarian, go humane or just eat less meat. Mr. Steiner rightly rejects this view as morally flawed. It’s all good advice from the point of view of doing better by animals.
(Peter Singer more broadly examines the moral standing of animals here.) While this belief might not compel us to be vegetarians, it does demand significant changes in the way we raise animals for food, and it forbids wolf hunting as a form of entertainment. Is meat-eating necessary? If so, in what sense and for what purpose?
Further, did those who reacted so strongly to Harambe’s killing go home and serve meat to their children? This horrible incident has raised some tough questions indeed. The hysteria of the crowd surely played a part in escalating an already frightening situation. Michelle Nadon, Aurora, Canada To the editor: Bars?
As such, they are likely to be better moral reasoners , as well, both in their ability to identify moral reasons and in their ability to appreciate these reasons. I suspect that many of the vegetarians in Gale's study base their vegetarianism on just such moral reasons.
The fact that geese mate for life, and that the mate of the poor goose that was slaughtered would step forward, was enough to make me swear off meat forever, if I hadn’t already. 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?
It’s appalling that anyone would think that a diet based on a dubious morality would build a human infant. I’ve raised a vegan child since conception. Children need protein. George Mazzei St. Petersburg, Fla., May 21, 2007 To the Editor: “Death by Veganism,” by Nina Planck, strays far from the truth about vegan diets.
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. What Meat Should Not Be Eaten? What is forbidden meat? Most moral vegetarians list fish and fowl as animals one should not eat. The question can be raised: Why should these organisms be killed and others not be killed?
He thinks that the treatment of animals in factory farms is morally unjustifiable, and yet, he continues to support those practices financially by purchasing and eating meat and animal products. It goes something like this: Yes, I agree that factory farming is morally unjustifiable and ought to be abolished.
While plenty of people pay attention to the question of what it means to raise an animal humanely, far fewer stop to consider the notion—and the ostensible paradox—of humane slaughter." The chef's perspective is represented by Dan Barber, who serves Eggleston's meat. The second paragraph needs to be looked at sentence by sentence.
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