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
Another opportunity for infiltration (heh, heh, heh) has presented itself on Intent.com , which has a " Food and Nutrition " page that already has posts about mindful eating and vegetarianism. One complaint many of us have with "liberals" and "progressives" is that they tend to leave veganism and animal rights out of their sphere of concern.
A third of a century ago, when the modern animal-liberation movement was in its infancy, Martin published an essay entitled “A Critique of MoralVegetarianism,” Reason Papers (fall 1976): 13-43. I suspect that many readers of this blog are Christians but not vegetarians. At no point will we speculate about Martin’s motives.
For an explanation of this feature, click on “MoralVegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. SOME PROBLEMS OF MORALVEGETARIANISM With respect to traditional moralvegetarianism some problems immediately come to the fore. What animals is it morally wrong to eat? KBJ: Martin cannot be serious.
For an explanation of this feature, click on “MoralVegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. ARGUMENTS FOR MORALVEGETARIANISM A variety of arguments have been given for vegetarianism. Sometimes they take such a sketchy form that it is not completely clear they are moral arguments.
For an explanation of this feature, click on “MoralVegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. The Argument from Animal Rights A stronger argument is made by people who maintain that animals have rights. In particular, it has been argued that animals have a right to life.
For an explanation of this feature, click on “MoralVegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. The Argument from Human Grain Shortage All of the clearly moral arguments for vegetarianism given so far have been in terms of animal rights and suffering. The next assumption is no less dubious.
And the other is taking up vegetarianism. But what about the vegetarian alternative? How do we know but what, once we got used to a vegetarian diet, we would find that our pleasure is scarcely diminished at all? Here what one needs to do is calculate the pleasure, interest, satisfaction, etc.,
Hal Herzog’s “ Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat ” (Harper 2011), though fascinating, is ultimately depressing for vegans and animal rights activists. Over at Animal Rights and AntiOppression , we’ve been discussing tactics and sharing our thoughts and experiences about what works and doesn’t work when it comes to advocacy.
The idea is to cultivate discussion in the forum in order to better suit visitors needing help from people like you on going vegan or understanding animal rights. Here were some odd points to ponder: I think Bella, the main character, is a vegetarian. The good ones are morally superior to the bad ones because they don't eat humans.
According to this BBC story, city officials in Ghent, Belgium, are encouraging all residents to go vegetarian one day a week. As a result, the main menu in restaurants on Thursdays will be vegetarian. Starting in September, schools will serve vegetarian meals to schoolchildren on Thursdays as well.
Or bake some vegan cookies for a vegetarian friend who's convinced that she cannot survive without eggs and butter. I'm not saying give up on "animal rights," either. I'm not talking about morality here, I'm talking about language. I'm not talking about morality here, I'm talking about language.
He always refers to himself and his wife and his child as "vegetarian." But why does he say "vegetarian?" That bothers me, as there's a significant difference in motivation for vegans and vegetarians and he sounds like one, yet calls himself the other. He is against it for himself and his family.
But they also haven't made a moral choice to not use animals. And they reach a lot of people who don't have animal rights on their radar but might stop using animals for food if they had something to gain (assuming a clearer conscience isn't something to gain). My dogs eat vegan dog food. They don't have collars made from animals.
Ethical vegetarianism is the thesis that killing and eating animals is morally wrong whenever equally nutritious plant-based alternatives are available. The case for ethical vegetarianism starts with several uncontroversial premises. It is not just a few outspoken animal rights fanatics who hold this view.
The question of whether animals possess rights is once again topical, largely as a result of the recent surge of interest in animal welfare and in the moral pros and cons of eating animals and using them in scientific research. Arguments to show that animals do have rights, therefore, are at a premium. (
I don't expect that many readers will be converted to the cause of animal rights by reading this book. I have focused exclusively on moral theory. Franklin, Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy [New York: Columbia University Press, 2005], xvii-xviii) There is a vital long-term benefit as well.
Often confused with American Humane Association, they raise tens of millions, not to ‘save the animals’ as most people assume but to further the causes of vegetarianism and ending animal agriculture." Perhaps it is the industry's inability to evolve morally that is behind the times. I wish their mission was to end animal agriculture.
There's no remotely vegan or even vegetarian (though I'm not even sure what the latter would look like) message. The moral of the story is that it's all about the way we farm animals, not that we farm them that is what needs changing. We eat animals, and the CAFO system is an evil, filthy, cruel one, but it doesn't have to be that way.
The only real cure for the evil is the growing sense that the lower animals are closely akin to us, and have Rights. Salt , The Logic of Vegetarianism: Essays and Dialogues [London: The Ideal Publishing Union, 1899], 109-10 [italics in original])
In other words, we become vegetarians, not through any decision of principle, but through being unable to bring ourselves to continue to dine upon the flesh of animals. 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.
which may be called the Consistency Trick—akin to that known in common parlance as the tu quoque or "you're another"—the device of setting up an arbitrary standard of "consistency," and then demonstrating that the Vegetarian himself, judged by that standard, is as "inconsistent" as other persons.
22): Mr. Steiner might feel less lonely as an ethical vegan—he says he has just five vegan friends—if he recognized that he has allies in mere vegetarians (like me), ethical omnivores and even carnivores. Go vegan, go vegetarian, go humane or just eat less meat. Mr. Steiner rightly rejects this view as morally flawed.
According to Singer , the principle of the equal consideration of interests 'requires us to be vegetarians'. 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'.
I propose that the moral significance of the suffering, mutilation, and death of non-human animals rests on the following, which may be called the overflow principle: Act towards that which, while not itself a person, is closely associated with personhood in a way coherent with an attitude of respect for persons.
Eat right. If you are already a vegetarian, make this the year that you decide to go vegan. What counts as eating right? By eating a low-fat vegan diet centered around whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and legumes, you will be eating right. Lose weight. Quit smoking. Exercise more. Drink less alcohol. Get out of debt.
The tiresome Hitler was a well-known vegetarian comment is included in this segment, but I found it irksome long before that. He's right with his implication that stopping the seizing of pets and strays simply created a more efficient, effective means of commodifying and torturing dogs and cats. Part III: Pepper Goes to Washington.
For pastoralism belongs rightly to another and earlier phase of the world's economics, and as civilisation spreads it becomes more and more an anachronism, as surely as flesh-eating, by a corresponding change, becomes an anachronism in morals.
Currently, I do not believe that killing an animal is prima facie morally wrong. Also, I am not a vegetarian, though I attempted to be one last year (an experience I plan on posting about). Also, I am not a vegetarian, though I attempted to be one last year (an experience I plan on posting about).
I suspect that many regular readers of Animal Ethics are already vegetarians. That's because those who read Animal Ethics with regularity know that there are many compelling reasons to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease.
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. Duty requires us, therefore, to eat our friends.
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. Still others will do so because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that vegetarianism (or demi-vegetarianism) is good for human beings.
As a recent convert to vegetarianism, I found that it reinforced my feeling that the eating of living, thinking, emotional creatures is just plain wrong. Kristof’s thoughtful exploration of animal rights, I was astonished to read that he continues to eat animals, like geese and pigs, for which he obviously has such affection and respect.
Only then will these companies “do the right thing,” if only to ensure their continued survival. 4, 2009 To the Editor: I have been a strict vegetarian most of my life, and, as such, I have never lacked reasons—ethical, economic and health-related—to continue this lifestyle. 4): Your article about E. Ann Calandro Flemington, N.J.,
For an explanation of this feature, click on “MoralVegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. Most moralvegetarians list fish and fowl as animals one should not eat. Vegan vegetarians who eat only vegetables, fruit, and nuts do not completely remove all microorganisms from their food, even with repeated cleaning.
For an explanation of this feature, click on “MoralVegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. Becoming a vegetarian is not merely a symbolic gesture. First, it is dubious that becoming a vegetarian would have much effect on present practice. In fact, animals used for food do suffer a great deal. causing a decline in U.S.
For an explanation of this feature, click on “MoralVegetarianism” 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 “MoralVegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. Would they have the right to treat you as you treat animals you breed, keep, and kill for food? Tags: MoralVegetarianism. Most human beings and presumably all of Harris’s aliens are persons.
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