Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Animal rights writer Henry S. Salt termed the replaceability argument the "logic of the larder".. In 1789, the utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham endorsed a variant of the argument, contending that painlessly killing a nonhuman animal is beneficial for everyone because it does not harm the animal and the consumers of the meat produced from the animal's body are better off as a result.
Lexical threshold" negative utilitarianism says that there is some disutility, for instance some extreme suffering, such that no positive utility can counterbalance it. [22] 'Consent-based' negative utilitarianism is a specification of lexical threshold negative utilitarianism, which specifies where the threshold should be located.
German author Bernard Moncriff’s 1856 book The Philosophy of the Stomach; or an Exclusively Animal Diet is the Most Wholesome and Fit for Man outlines an argument for why men can and should eat ...
Punishment might make "bad people" into "better" ones. For the utilitarian, all that "bad person" can mean is "person who's likely to cause unwanted things (like suffering)". So, utilitarianism could recommend punishment that changes someone such that they are less likely to cause bad things. Successful rehabilitation would reduce recidivism. [155]
Blood as food is the usage of blood in food, religiously and culturally.Many cultures consume blood, often in combination with meat.The blood may be in the form of blood sausage, as a thickener for sauces, a cured salted form for times of food scarcity, or in a blood soup. [1]
Here’s why: Both iron and vitamin B12 play key roles in red blood cell production, ensuring oxygen is efficiently transported throughout the body. When levels of either nutrient are low or ...
Women, said Naguleswaran, are simply more likely to ditch meat, and to care about how their diet affects the environment and other people. It’s not your imagination. Men really do eat more meat ...
Porphyry advocates for vegetarianism on both spiritual and ethical grounds, applying arguments from his own school of Neoplatonism to counter those in favor of meat-eating from the Stoic, Peripatetic, and Epicurean schools. Porphyry argues that there is a moral obligation to extend justice to animals because they are rational beings.