Book Review: A Critique of the Moral Defense of Vegetarianism [Book Review]

Abstract

Smith makes his case against V-ism by appeals to (i) plant sentience, and (ii) the Transitivity of Eating principle [by which V-ans eat animals, since plants feed on decomposed animals]. By (i), V-ans are inconsistent in their prohibitions; by (ii) V-ism is impossible. But, I argue, Smith and his beloved omnivore animists face similar pressures, insofar as they prohibit cannibalism.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

In Defense of Eating Vegan.Stijn Bruers - 2015 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (4):705-717.
In Defense of Eating Meat.Timothy Hsiao - 2015 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (2):277-291.
A Carnivorous Rejoinder to Bruers and Erdös.Timothy Hsiao - 2015 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (6):1127-1138.
Duty and the Beast: Should We Eat Meat in the Name of Animal Rights?Andy Lamey - 2019 - Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Islamic Philosophy on Animal Rights.Mahfouz Azzam - 2006 - In Jacky Turner & Joyce D'Silva (eds.), Animals, ethics, and trade: the challenge of animal sentience. Sterling, VA: Earthscan. pp. 129.
Save the Meat for Cats: Why It’s Wrong to Eat Roadkill.Cheryl Abbate & C. E. Abbate - 2019 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 32 (1):165-182.

Analytics

Added to PP
2016-05-19

Downloads
677 (#38,959)

6 months
141 (#33,034)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Paul Bali
Toronto Metropolitan University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references