Animal Ethics
APRIL 16, 2009
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. One might assume—although again this assumption may not be jusitified [sic]—that Mr. One might assume—although again this assumption may not be jusitified [sic]—that Mr. Morse was using this consideration as a moral argument for vegetarianism.
Animal Ethics
JANUARY 20, 2008
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.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Animal Ethics
FEBRUARY 15, 2009
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. Most moral vegetarians list fish and fowl as animals one should not eat. The ability to feel pain is not an obviously plausible way of morally distinguishing microorganisms from other organisms. What Meat Should Not Be Eaten?
Animal Ethics
JUNE 4, 2009
For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. It can be argued instead that by eating meat one is giving one’s tacit consent or approval to the present situation, that the only way to be true to one’s moral conviction that the present treatment of animals is inhumane is not to eat meat.
Animal Person
JULY 22, 2009
Maybe sugar processed with bone char isn't worth boycotting a restaurant over. I'm not talking about morality here, I'm talking about language. And the real question is, is there thought--or is there morality-without language? Tags: Activism Current Affairs Ethics Language. And they're all pretty obvious. Maybe it is.
Animal Ethics
JUNE 17, 2008
What the utilitarian who defends human carnivorousness must say, then, is something like this: that the amount of pleasure which humans derive per pound of animal flesh exceeds the amount of discomfort and pain per pound which are inflicted on the animals in the process, all things taken into account. Is this plausible?
10,000 Birds
DECEMBER 17, 2014
But the tenets of the North American Model were developed in the 19th century, when wildlife ethics and science were a mere glimmer of what we understand today. The system was intended as a hunter-centric model, both guided by and benefitting consumptive interests. But is there validity to these commonly held ideas?
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
40 
Let's personalize your content