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.
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 ...
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.
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% ...
How Much Meat Is Healthy To Eat? The Recommended Dietary Allowance is 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day. This is the minimum amount people should consume and will vary based ...
Related: What Happens to Your Body When You Eat Red Meat Every Day. The Bottom Line. Eating meat can offer multiple health benefits, including more energy, improved body composition, healthier ...
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.
While meat eaters may have an inner conflict about the killing of animals for their food, this explanation of vegaphobia may not hold up to environmental reasons for avoiding meat. Environmentalist meat eaters may not see a conflict in eating meat because they see their individual environmental impact of meat consumption as low. [37]