article thumbnail

Moral Vegetarianism, Part 12 of 13

Animal Ethics

The Argument from Brutalization The previous argument was based on an alleged indirect effect on human beings of not eating meat. Conversely, vegetarianism, it is argued, tends to humanize people. This argument can have a strong or weak form depending on what is meant by “brutalize” and “humanize.”

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. By the end of my time as researcher, I was performing behavioral experiments on humans. It "guarantees humane treatment?" Maybe on paper.

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

Jan Narveson on Moral Vegetarianism

Animal Ethics

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?

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. One ought to adopt the best means.