Agency and Autonomy in Food Choice: Can We Really Vote with Our Forks?

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 35 (1):1-15 (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Ethical consumerism is the thesis that we should let our values determine our consumer purchases. We should purchase items that accord with our values and refrain from buying those that do not. The end goal, for ethical consumerism, is to transform the market through consumer demand. The arm of this movement associated with food choice embraces the slogan “Vote with Your Fork!” As in the more general movement, the idea is that we should let our values dictate our choices. In this paper, I offer a critique of the Vote with Your Fork campaign (hereafter VWYF) that focuses on the agency of individuals. For VWYF to be effective, minimally, individuals must act _intentionally_ when making food choices. In the ideal case, individuals adopt and endorse the values implicit in VWYF and exhibit _autonomous agency_ when they purchase and consume food. The problem, though, is that a number of things can go wrong along the way. I argue that very few of us are in the position to exhibit autonomous agency with respect to our food choices. Because of this, VWYF could very well undermine its own goals.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,619

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Autonomy, Values, and Food Choice.J. M. Dieterle - 2016 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (3):349-367.
Vote With Your Fork? Responsibility for Food Justice.Erinn Gilson - 2014 - Social Philosophy Today 30:113-130.
What to Buy? On the Complexity of Being a Critical Consumer.Mickey Gjerris, Christian Gamborg & Henrik Saxe - 2016 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (1):81-102.
What Shall We Eat? An Ethical Framework for Well-Grounded Food Choices.Anna T. Höglund - 2020 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 33 (2):283-297.
A Moral Argument for Veganism.Daniel Hooley & Nathan Nobis - 2016 - In Andrew Chignell, Terence Cuneo & Matthew C. Halteman (eds.), Philosophy Comes to Dinner: Arguments on the Ethics of Eating. Routledge.
Food: From Commodity to Commons.Gunnar Rundgren - 2016 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (1):103-121.

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-02-23

Downloads
46 (#471,608)

6 months
6 (#820,551)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Jill Dieterle
Eastern Michigan University

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

Intention.G. E. M. Anscombe - 1957 - Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility.John Martin Fischer & Mark Ravizza - 1998 - New York: Cambridge University Press. Edited by Mark Ravizza.
Freedom of the will and the concept of a person.Harry G. Frankfurt - 1971 - Journal of Philosophy 68 (1):5-20.
Actions, Reasons, and Causes.Donald Davidson - 1963 - Journal of Philosophy 60 (23):685.
Freedom Within Reason.Susan Wolf - 1990 - New York: Oup Usa.

View all 32 references / Add more references