A Kantian Argument Against Eating Animals
نویسندگان
چکیده
Abstract This chapter uses Kantianism for Animals creatively to develop an argument against eating dead animals. Received vegetarian arguments focus on the relation between meat and harm animals, running into difficulties like ‘causal impotence problem’, which discusses. enables that, because animals are moral patients, we have a duty self treat their bodies as morally important objects. derives from obligatory end of our own perfection. As explains, this prohibits commodification treating deceased others foodstuffs, but not necessarily all forms others. For instance, cannibalism part grieving practice is prohibited by argument.
منابع مشابه
A Kantian argument against abortion.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. .
متن کاملAgainst the Vagueness Argument
In this paper I offer a counterexample to the so called vagueness argument against restricted composition. This will be done in the lines of a recent suggestion by Trenton Merricks, namely by challenging the claim that there cannot be a sharp cut-off point in a composition sequence. It will be suggested that causal powers which emerge when composition occurs can serve as an indicator of such sh...
متن کاملAn Argument against Epiphenomenalism
_________________________________________________ I formulate an argument against epiphenomenalism; the argument shows that epiphenomenalism is extremely improbable. Moreover the argument suggests that qualia not only have causal powers, but have their causal powers necessarily. I address possible objections and then conclude by considering some implications the argument has for dualism.
متن کاملA Contractarian Argument Against the Death Penalty
Opponents of the death penalty typically base their opposition on contingent features of its administration, arguing that the death penalty is applied discriminatorily, that the innocent are sometimes executed, or that there is insufficient evidence of the death penalty’s deterrent efficacy. Implicit in these arguments is the suggestion that if these contingencies did not obtain, serious moral ...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: The Palgrave Macmillan animal ethics series
سال: 2022
ISSN: ['2634-6672', '2634-6680']
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-01930-2_9