article thumbnail

Moral Vegetarianism, Part 12 of 13

Animal Ethics

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. But the reason Hitler did not eat meat is irrelevant to the present argument.

article thumbnail

Jan Narveson on Moral Vegetarianism

Animal Ethics

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.

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

Deconstructing Slate's "Pepper" Series

Animal Person

There's a vague sense that perhaps he cares about the dogs or thinks that what he does to them might present an ethical dilemma, but the overwhelming feeling is that it's all worth it. It "guarantees humane treatment?" This one gives us a look inside the mind of the vivisectionist, Daniel Engber. Maybe on paper.

article thumbnail

Moral Vegetarianism, Part 8 of 13

Animal Ethics

For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post. 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. One ought to adopt the best means.