article thumbnail

J. Baird Callicott on the Catastrophe of Vegetarianism

Animal Ethics

The net result would be fewer nonhuman beings and more human beings, who, of course, have requirements of life far more elaborate than even those of domestic animals, requirements which would tax other "natural resources" (trees for shelter, minerals mined at the expense of topsoil and its vegetation, etc.)

article thumbnail

J. Baird Callicott on Misanthropy

Animal Ethics

A global population of more than four billion persons and showing no signs of an orderly decline presents an alarming prospect to humanists, but it is at present a global disaster (the more per capita prosperity, indeed, the more disastrous it appears) for the biotic community.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Michael Fox on Vegetarianism

Animal Ethics

There is no doubt a good deal of truth in this last point as well, and we are here presented with a serious moral problem concerning the world food supply. Michael Fox , "'Animal Liberation': A Critique," Ethics 88 [January 1978]: 106-18, at 116-7) But even this fails to establish a case for vegetarianism.

article thumbnail

Moral Vegetarianism, Part 1 of 13

Animal Ethics

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. Some of the arguments I will present are not worked out in detail, and no detailed criticisms of any one provegetarian argument will be given.

article thumbnail

Moral Vegetarianism, Part 8 of 13

Animal Ethics

One argument is this: The present practice of treating animals used for food is immoral and should be changed. So, if one wants to change the present practice, the best means is to stop eating meat. First, it is dubious that becoming a vegetarian would have much effect on present practice.