Search

A network of beliefs and values (an ideology) underlies much of our behavior. While meat-eaters may not acknowledge that they have an ideology, I argue that they do by attempting to identify and deconstruct its elements. I also include numerous historical and philosophical observations about the origins of meat-eaters’ ideology. Explaining and examining ideologies may encourage discussion about a particular area of life (for example, dietary choice) and stimulate change in relation to it. Both adherents to vegetarian/vegan approaches and meat-eaters who wish to become less dependent on animal food sources (for ethical and environmental reasons) can benefit from the broader understanding that such an analysis provides.

Schopenhauer had important things to say about ethics in both normative and meta-ethical senses, but his impact on the evolution of moral theory has been minimized by the unfortunate neglect of his philosophy in general. A contemporary assessment of his ethical views reveals that they are both imaginative and interesting, not least because they challenge assumptions held by more canonical figures in the history of philosophy, both before and after his time. Since the roots of ethics are currently being vigorously re-examined, it is regrettable that Schopenhauer's ideas have been omitted from mainstream discussion in the field. I attempt to remedy this lack by investigating how his ethics of compassion contributes to the following areas: reconciling ethics with strict determinism; naturalizing ethics; developing the philosophy of education; seeking inner peace and world peace; re-visioning our relationship with non-human animals and the environment. As this list indicates, Schopenhauer's moral theory has r...

The food we choose to eat tells a good deal about who we are and how we stand in relation to nonhuman animals and nature as a whole. Though most people are concerned about the state of the world and about their own health, they tend not to reflect very much, if at all, on what results from their dietary choices, and therefore see nothing wrong in eating meat I question this attitude. Specifically, I argue that, for the same reasons we should care about pain, suffering, well-being, and death in humans, so should we care about the fate of animals we traditionally designate as sources of meat Caring is supplemented in my argument by considerations of justice, and I contend that for reasons of caring and justice, we should be vegetarians, consistent with the aim of minimizing the harm we cause by our lifestyle choices. Finally, I examine what it means to take responsibility for our diets and challenge meat eaters to come to terms with the wrongdoing that is inherent in the livestock industry today.

In this article, the author attempts to supplement Joan Dunayer’s critique of vivisection by first stating and then exploring in some detail “the ideology of biomedical and behavioral science,” which consists of several mindsets that resist the development of noninvasive animal science and science that does not rely on animal research. Other issues examined are animal rights versus animal welfare, the bogus concept of “necessary suffering,” the tendency to deny or minimize animal pain and suffering, and the phenomenon of “compartmentalization” (or psychological distancing). A focused account of all these elements, the author argues, enables understanding of where vivisectionists are coming from and why they are so resistant to radical change in their methods.

I begin by asserting that a vegetarian, even a vegan diet, from a nutritional standpoint, is at least as healthy as, and in all probability healthier than, one which centers on or includes meat. Scientific evidence supporting this claim is beginning to accumulate, and abundant material is available for those who wish to pursue the issue (Anonymous 1988a; Anonymous 1988b; Barnard 1993; Chen 1990; Melina, Davis, and Harrison 1994; White and Frank 1994). In addition, every good bookshop today has several vegetarian and/or vegan cookbooks, and many titles currently on the market contain excellent chapters on the fundamentals of vegetarian nutrition as well as references to contemporary nutritional research. For these reasons I shall not attempt to summarize here the evidence in favor of a vegetarian diet. My second preliminary claim is that meat-eating in general is, and in particular certain kinds of meat-eating are, unhealthy. The statistical correlation between high meat consumption and increased probability of colon, breast, and other cancers, heart disease, and atherosclerosis far and away the leading causes of death in North America has been well established by many independent researchers (Barnard 1990; Fiddles 1991; Mitra 1991; National Research Council 1989; Robbins 1987). This realization prompted Health and Welfare Canada (a federal government department) to issue a new version of Canada 's Food Guide to Healthy Eating, which appeared in 1992. Alternatives to meats (such as tofu and legumes) are accentuated, as are 5-10 servings per day of vegetables and fruits and 5-12 servings per day of grain products. Critics maintain that an even greater shift toward a vegetarian diet might have been endorsed in the Guide had it not been for the extraordinary (and entirely predictable) behind-the-scenes lobbying efforts of the livestock industry ("Industry Forced Changes" 1993).

Most people, past and present, have never seriously questioned whether it is morally acceptable to eat animals and treat them as resources. However, vegetarianism and veganism, which have a lengthy history in both Western and non-Western cultures, challenge these assumptions and clash with prevailing views about how humans should conduct their lives and make use of the natural world. Religious practices and ideas about diet energized early outlooks of this sort more than clearly focused ethical reflections; but the latter have surfaced periodically, from the Greco-Roman period to the present. Strong, sustained vegetarian and vegan movements today coincide with the rise of the animal rights/liberation movement, and are fueled by concerns about factory farming, climate change, healthy eating, and how to feed a rapidly increasing human population. Keywords: duty and obligation; ethics; harm; moral status; practical (applied) ethics

Have humans evolved as violent and warlike? Studies of peaceful societies, historical trends of warfare and violence, and cooperation say otherwise. Evolution is not destiny; human choices are important interventions in the process. A science of intentional change, using alternative learning techniques that support human interactions based on nonviolence and peaceful coexistence, might help to evolve a culture of peace.

The impulse toward violence and cruelty is endemic to the human species. But so, likewise, is the impulse toward compassionate behavior. Victor Nell acknowledges this, but he does not explore the matter any further. I supplement his account by discussing how compassion, specifically in the moral education of children, can help remedy the problem of violence and cruelty in society.

This essay begins at the intersection of two controversies that are of considerable importance to contemporary discussions about the relationship between our species and the restofnature. One concerns the question of whether a compelling case can be made for vegetarianism on moral grounds. The other has to do with the debate between proponents ofanimal rights and ethical holists over which kind of theory provides a more adequate foundation for a new environmental ethic. My remarks have their origin in some personal observations as well. Over the past decade and a half I have been a participant in numerous conferences, seminars and workshops on themes having to do with animal rights or animal liberation; I have also been involved in many centering on problems in environ­ mental ethics. These have all been positive experiences for me in one way or another, and have, I believe, expanded the horizons ofeveryone present. Yet I could not avoid noticing that when I am at an animal rights or animal liberation conference it is a foregone conclusion, an essential premise, that all food presented to delegates shall be vegetarian, even vegan. In contraSt, conferences occupied with topics in environmental ethics conunonly display no such commitment; and as a matter of fact, I fmd myself at these gatherings surrounded by persons discoursing earnestly on the subtleties of biocentrism, the land ethic, value· theory, deep ecology, Gaianism, and so forth who are simultaneously tucking lustily into steaks, chops, bacon, and even veal with no apparent qualms. At one recent conference on environmental ethics and sustainable development, of some fifty participants. only two others besides myself had requested vegetarian meals. At another, a workshop on environmental ethics and higher education, I was the only one of thirty participants not eating meat. In case it may be thought that too much weight is being placed here on one source of evidence, it should also be noted that of seventeen general anthologies of contemporary work in environmental ethics or environmental philosophy that have appeared since 1974, only one contains an essay specifically devoted to agricultural issues.1None contains an essay that treats the topic of meat as an environmental problem. The same omission is found in monographs in these fields. (Ecofeminists, however, do engage this issue2 and appear to be the only group of theorists for whom it is anything like a central concern. What this entails will be considered briefly in section 5.) What does it all mean? Before I attempt an answer let me say that I fmd