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.
Peter Albert David Singer AC FAHA (born 6 July 1946) is an Australian moral philosopher who is Emeritus Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University.Singer's work specialises in applied ethics, approaching the subject from a secular, utilitarian perspective.
His 2019 book, Dialogues on Ethical Vegetarianism, is a series of dialogues on the ethics of eating meat. Peter Singer , who wrote the foreword to the book, commented that "In the future, when people ask me why I don't eat meat, I will tell them to read this book."
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.
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 ...
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]
Women eat less red meat than men. (Getty Creative) (d3sign via Getty Images) For better or worse, some stereotypes hold true, including, according to a new study, that men eat more red meat than ...
In a 2014 survey of 406 US philosophy professors, approximately 60% of ethicists and 45% of non-ethicist philosophers said it was at least somewhat "morally bad" to eat meat from mammals. [10] A 2020 survey of 1,812 published English-language philosophers found that 48% said it was permissible to eat animals in ordinary circumstances, while 45% ...