I propose that meat replacement is to meat, as drag is to gender. Meat replacement has the potential to shake concepts of meat, like drag does for gender. Meat replacements not only mimic meat but disclose how meat itself is performed in carnivorous culture -and show that it may be performed otherwise. My approach is inspired by the show RuPaul’s Drag Race. The argument builds on an imitation of Judith Butler’s work on gender (...) performativity, performed by replacing ‘drag/ gender/ sex/ heterosexism’ terms and relations in Butler’s text with ‘meat replacement/ meat/ species/ carnism’ ones. (shrink)

The devastating impact of the COVID‐19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic is prompting renewed scrutiny of practices that heighten the risk of infectious disease. One such practice is refusing available vaccines known to be effective at preventing dangerous communicable diseases. For reasons of preventing individual harm, avoiding complicity in collective harm, and fairness, there is a growing consensus among ethicists that individuals have a duty to get vaccinated. I argue that these same grounds establish an analogous duty to avoid buying and (...) eating most meat sold today, based solely on a concern for human welfare. Meat consumption is a leading driver of infectious disease. Wildlife sales at wet markets, bushmeat hunting, and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are all exceptionally risky activities that facilitate disease spread and impose immense harms on human populations. If there is a moral duty to vaccinate, we also should recognize a moral duty to avoid most meat. The paper concludes by considering the implications of this duty for policy. (shrink)

In a world where meat is often a token of comfort, health, hospitality, and abundance, one can be forgiven for raising an eyebrow at the conjunction “meat and evil.” Why pull meat into the orbit of harm, pestilence, ill-will, and privation? From another perspective, the answer is obvious: meat—the flesh of slaughtered animals taken for food—is the remnant of a feeling creature who was recently alive and whose death was premature, violent, and often gratuitous. The truth (...) is that meat has a checkered history in the West. From its origin-story in Abrahamic religion to its industrial production in today’s world, meat is well-marbled with evil and its minions: sin, violence, injustice, destruction, suffering, and death. Beyond keeping company with these obtrusive forms of evil, meat’s success at remaining, nevertheless, in our collective good graces illuminates some of evil’s subtler shades too. We might learn something of insidiousness, self-deception, rationalization, and bad faith by exploring why the ever-strengthening consensus that habitual meat-eating is unhealthful, morally dubious, and environmentally damaging is often still no match for a philosopher’s savor of cheeseburgers. My aim is to consider meat’s fitness for a place in the Western history of evil by reflecting briefly on its outsized roles at the bookends of this narrative: meat’s primeval history in Genesis, and its contribution today to ethical and environmental problems of arguably apocalyptic proportions. (shrink)

I propose that the intensification of meat production ironically makes meat concepts available to be populated by plants. I argue that what I call “technologies of effacement” facilitate the intensification of animal farming and slaughter by blocking face-to-face encounters between animals and people (Levinas 1969; Efstathiou 2018, 2019). My previous ethnographic work on animal research identifies technologies of effacement as including (a) architectures and the built environment, (b) entry and exit rules, (c) special garments, (d) naming and labeling (...) procedures, and (e) protocols for handling animals (Efstathiou 2018, 2019). Building on ethnographic research by Dawn Coppin (2003) and Nöellie Vialles (1994), in the United States and France respectively, I propose that (a) Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) buildings, gestation, and farrowing crates; (b) rules for entering and exiting the slaughterhouse; (c) white slaughterhouse garments; (d) unique identification systems; and (e) “trapping” animals before stunning can all operate as technologies of effacement. Though developed to serve other manifest aims, like hygiene, expediency, or safety, these technologies operate to sustain routine, inviting one to look at animals as tokens of a known type while blocking encounters between humans and animals (and also among animals) as radically different, morally significant Others (Efstathiou 2018, 2019). (shrink)

The project of growing meat artificially represents for some the next best thing to humanity. If successful, it could be the solution to several problems, such as feeding a growing global population while reducing the environmental impact of raising animals for food and, of course, reducing the amount and degree of animal cruelty and suffering that is involved in animal farming. In this paper, I argue that the issue of the morality of such a project has been framed only (...) in terms of the best consequences for the environment, animals, and humans, or in terms of deontic principles. I argue that to appreciate how deep and difficult this issue is, it is necessary to consider it in terms of a virtue-oriented approach. Such an approach will reveal aspects that are not apparent, not contemplated by typical approaches, but are essential to our understanding of the morality of lab-grown meat. As I argue, evaluating the issue from a virtue-oriented perspective suggests that the project of in vitro meat should not be supported because it stems from unvirtuous motivations. (shrink)

The goal of ethical veganism is a vegan world or, at least, a significantly vegan world. However, despite the hard work done by vegan activists, global meat consumption has been increasing (Saiidi 2019; Christen 2021). Vegan advocates have focused on ethics but have ignored the importance of tradition and identity. And the advent of veggie meat alternatives has promoted food that emulates animal products thereby perpetuating the meat paradigm. I suggest that, in order to make significant changes (...) toward ending animal exploitation, ethical vegans give more attention to tradition and identity. Furthermore, I propose that raw veganism is the most ethical diet and can be the best way to move away from animal-based food. (shrink)

Computational functionalism claims that executing certain computations is suf- cient for consciousness, regardless of the physical mechanisms implementing those computations. This view neglects a compelling alternative: that subcomputational biological mechanisms, which realize computational pro- cesses, are necessary for consciousness. By contrasting computational roles with their subcomputational biological realizers, I show that there is a systematic tension in our criteria for consciousness: prioritizing computational roles favors consciousness in AI, while prioritizing subcomputational biological realizers fa- vors consciousness in simpler animals. Current theories (...) of consciousness are 'meat-neutral', but if speci c physical substrates are necessary, AI may never achieve consciousness. Understanding whether consciousness depends on computational roles, biological realizers, or both, is crucial for assessing the prospects of consciousness in AI and less complex animals. (shrink)

Here are two commonly held moral views. First, we must save strangers’ lives, at least if we can do so easily: you would be required to rescue a child drowning in a pond even if it will ruin your expensive suit. Second, it is wrong to eat meat because of the suffering caused to animals in factory farms. Many accept both simultaneously—Peter Singer is the pre-eminent example. I point out that these two beliefs are in a sharp and seemingly (...) unrecognised tension and may even be incompatible. It seems universally accepted that doing or allowing a harm is permissible—and may even be required—when it is the lesser evil. I argue that, if meat eating is wrong on animal suffering grounds then, once we consider how much suffering might occur, it starts to seem plausible that saving strangers would be the greater evil than not rescuing them and is, therefore, not required after all. Given the uncertainties and subjective assessments here, reasonable people could substantially disagree. The surprising result is that a moral principle widely considered to be obviously true—we must rescue others—is not, on further reflection, obviously true and would be defensibly rejected by some. Some potential implications are discussed. (shrink)

The ecofeminist argument for veganism is powerful. Meat consumption is a deeply gendered act that is closely tied to the systematic objectification of women and nonhuman animals. I worry, however, that presenting veganism as "the" moral ideal might reinforce rather than alleviate the disordered status quo in gendered eating, further disadvantaging women in patriarchal power structures. In this chapter, I advocate a feminist account of ethical eating that treats dietary choices as moral choices insofar as they constitute an integral (...) part of our relationships to ourselves and to others. I believe that we should think of dietary choices in Aristotelian moral terms as a mean relative to us, falling on a continuum between the vice of doing injustice to ourselves, on the one hand, and the vice of doing injustice to others, on the other. On this view, what it is moral to eat for individuals is not a fixed ideal, but rather depends on particulars of our physiological, psychological, economic, cultural, and relational situations. (shrink)

Because factory-farmed meat production inflicts gratuitous suffering upon animals and wreaks havoc on the environment, there are morally compelling reasons to become vegetarian. Yet industrial plant agriculture causes the death of many field animals, and this leads some to question whether consumers ought to get some of their protein from certain kinds of non factory-farmed meat. Donald Bruckner, for instance, boldly argues that the harm principle implies an obligation to collect and consume roadkill and that strict vegetarianism is (...) thus immoral. But this argument works only if the following claims are true: all humans have access to roadkill, roadkill would go to waste if those who happen upon it don’t themselves consume it, it’s impossible to harvest vegetables without killing animals, the animals who are killed in plant production are all-things-considered harmed by crop farming, and the best arguments for vegetarianism all endorse the harm principle. As I will argue in this paper, each claim is deeply problematic. Consequently, in most cases, humans ought to strictly eat plants and save the roadkill for cats. (shrink)

In my recent paper, “The Epistemology of Meat-Eating,” I advanced an epistemological theory that explains why so many people continue to eat animals, even after they encounter anti-factory farming arguments. I began by noting that because meat-eating is seriously immoral, meat-eaters must either (1) believe that eating animals isn’t seriously immoral, or (2) believe that meat eating is seriously immoral (and thus they must be seriously immoral). I argued that standard meat-eaters don’t believe that eating (...) animals is seriously immoral because either they don’t believe that meat-eating causes serious and systematic harm to farmed animals, or they believe that meat-eating causes serious and systematic harm to farmed animals, but they don’t believe that this harm is unnecessary. In a response titled “Are Meat-Eaters Epistemically Unlucky?”, Bob Fischer presents five objections to my epistemic theory. In this paper, I offer responses to each of Fischer’s thought-provoking objections and develop his insightful suggestion that, according to my epistemic theory, animal protectionists are victims of epistemic injustice. (shrink)

Much has been written about the ethics of eating meat. Far less has been said about the ethics of serving meat. In this paper I argue that we often shouldn’t serve meat, even if it is morally permissible for individuals to purchase and eat meat. Historically, the ethical conversation surrounding meat has been limited to individual diets, meat producers, and government actors. I argue that if we stop the conversation there, then the urgent moral (...) problems associated with industrial animal agriculture will go unsolved. Instead, we must also consider the important but overlooked role that midsized institutions play in addressing major collective problems. I focus mostly on the harms that industrial animal agriculture inflicts on humans, animals, and the environment, but the discussion bears on other global issues like climate change. Institutional choices are an underexplored avenue for driving social change—their power and influence outstrip individual actions, and they can shape behavior in modest ways that promote social goods. Here I highlight the paradigmatic case of catered events and suggest three ways that institutional actors can reduce meat consumption and shape cultural attitudes surrounding meat: large impact decisions, subtly shaping incentives, and consolidating burdens. (shrink)

Unlike other ethical arguments for veganism, the argument advanced is not predicated on the wrongness of speciesism, nor does it depend on your believing that all animals are equal or that all animals have a right to life, nor is it predicated on some highly contentious metaethical theory which you reject. Rather, it is predicated on your beliefs. Simply put, the argument shows that even those of you who are steadfastly committed to valuing humans over nonhumans are nevertheless committed to (...) the immorality of eating meat and other animal products, given your other beliefs. (shrink)

This essay introduces the concept of the “Meat Paradox of God,” a theological dilemma that questions the moral coherence of a divine being who permits or condones the killing and consumption of sentient animals. The core argument suggests that a truly good and morally consistent God could not tolerate such acts without undermining divine justice. Consequently, religious meat consumption reveals a fundamental contradiction: either God is not morally perfect, or believers are engaged in ethically incompatible behavior. This paradox (...) calls for a radical reassessment of both theological ethics and lived religious practice. (shrink)

I explore the ethical issues involved in eating meat.

The prospect of consumable meat produced in a laboratory setting without the need to raise and slaughter animals is both realistic and exciting. Not only could such in vitro meat become popular due to potential cost savings, but it also avoids many of the ethical and environmental problems with traditional meat productions. However, as with any new technology, in vitro meat is likely to face some detractors. We examine in detail three potential objections: 1) in vitro (...) meat is disrespectful, either to nature or to animals; 2) it will reduce the number of happy animals in the world; and 3) it will open the door to cannibalism. While each objection has some attraction, we ultimately find that all can be overcome. The upshot is that in vitro meat production is generally permissible and, especially for ethical vegetarians, worth promoting. (shrink)

Switching from a meat-heavy to a plant-based diet is one of the highest-impact lifestyle changes for climate mitigation and adaptation. Conventional demand-side energy policy has focused on increasing consumption of efficient machines and fuels. Regulating food demand has key advantages. First, food consumption is biologically constrained, thus switching to more efficient foods avoids unintended consequences of switching to more efficient machines, like higher overall energy consumption. Second, food consumption, like smoking, is primed for norm- shifting because it occurs in (...) socially conspicuous environments. While place-based bans and information regulation were essential in lowering the prevalence of smoking, the same strategies may be even more effective in reducing meat demand. Several policy reforms can be implemented at the federal level, from reform of food marketing schemes to publicly subsidized meal programs. (shrink)

How can we make moral progress on factory farming? Part of the answer lies in human moral psychology. Meat consumption remains high, despite increased awareness of its negative impact on animal welfare. Weakness of will is part of the explanation: acceptance of the ethical arguments doesn’t always motivate changes in dietary habits. However, we draw on scientific evidence to argue that many consumers aren’t fully convinced that they morally ought to reduce their meat consumption. We then identify two (...) key psychological mechanisms—motivated reasoning and social proof—that lead people to resist the ethical reasons. Finally, we show how to harness these psychological mechanisms to encourage reductions in meat consumption. A central lesson for moral progress generally is that durable social change requires socially-embedded reasoning. (shrink)

The development of cultured meat has gained urgency through the increasing problems associated with meat, but what it might become is still open in many respects. In existing debates, two main moral profiles can be distinguished. Vegetarians and vegans who embrace cultured meat emphasize how it could contribute to the diminishment of animal suffering and exploitation, while in a more mainstream profile cultured meat helps to keep meat eating sustainable and affordable. In this paper we (...) argue that these profiles do not exhaust the options and that feelings as well as imagination are needed to explore possible future options. On the basis of workshops, we present a third moral profile, “the pig in the backyard”. Here cultured meat is imagined as an element of a hybrid community of humans and animals that would allow for both the consumption of animal protein and meaningful relations with domestic animals. Experience in the workshops and elsewhere also illustrates that thinking about cultured meat inspires new thoughts on “normal” meat. In short, the idea of cultured meat opens up new search space in various ways. We suggest that ethics can take an active part in these searches, by fostering a process that integrates feelings, imagination and rational thought and that expands the range of our moral identities. (shrink)

The study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Europ carcass classification system (ECCS) in discriminating between carcass characteristics and meat quality of fat-tailed (FT) and thin-tailed (TT) lambs. In this study, 45 single male lambs of the breeds Akkaraman (n = 14), Karayaka (n = 15), and Herik (n = 16) were used. The lambs were fed and slaughtered at 40 kg. After analysis, two groups were obtained in respect of meat quality and carcass characteristics. One was (...) Akkaraman and Herik as FT, and the other was Karayaka. The effect of fatness class (FC) on carcass characteristics in FT and TT breeds was generally significant. The effect of FC on meat quality characteristics was significant only in a* and b* and expressed juice traits in TT lambs, while no meat quality parameters were affected in FT lambs. While the effect of conformation on carcass traits was significant in terms of trimmed meat, bone and fat percentages in FT lambs, the effect of conformation class (CC) on meat quality traits was insignificant in both tail structures. In conclusion, FC is more effective than CC in distinguishing carcass and meat quality traits in FT and TT lambs according to EECS. This system could be improved especially meat quality characteristics both FT and TT lamb carcasses. -/- . (shrink)

Many people believe that if we could produce meat without animal suffering—say, in ‘humane’ or ‘happy’ farms, or by growing it in a lab from biopsied cells—there would be no moral problem with doing so. This chapter argues otherwise. There is something morally ‘off’ with eating the flesh of sentient beings however it is produced. It is ‘off’ because anyone who truly understands the intimate relationship that an animal’s body stands in to all the value and disvalue in their (...) lives would not want to eat flesh. The chapter concludes by arguing that, as a society, we should not switch over to ‘happy’ or lab-grown meat. Instead, it is imperative that we pursue a public reckoning on our treatment of animals in factory farms, not only for the sake of animals, but for the sake of humanity itself. (shrink)

Our main research question is how pliable Norwegian meat consumption practices are. However it is not any type of elasticity we are interested in. We are specifically interested in the scope for what we dub the “4Rs” of responsible meat consumption within existing food systems: 1. Reducing the amount of animal-based proteins used 2. Replacing animal-based protein with plant-based, or insect-based alternatives 3. Refining processes of utilization of animal-based protein to minimize emissions, loss and waste 4. Recognising animal-based (...) protein as precious –i.e. recognising the people and the animals involved in meat production. -/- These four principles are derived by analogy to ethical principles guiding the use of animals in research, the so-called “3Rs”, namely: the imperatives to reduce the number of animals needed to make a scientific inference, to replace animal experiments with other types of research, and where not possible to replace ‘more’ with ‘less’ sentient creatures, and to refine the experimental setup so it minimises the discomfort and/or distress inflicted upon the animals (Russell and Burch, 1959). There are no such principles guiding the use of animals in farming, given the farming industry intrinsically relies on increasing its resources, of which animals are one. The current profile of climate change however opens up a way to re-appreciate meat –indeed what we articulate as the fourth principle of recognizing the preciousness of meat, above, given planetary boundaries. We proceed to reflect on how these 4Rs can be modulated, from a cultural-social perspective, that is, we look at cultural factors that could stretch current food practices along the 4R aspects. (shrink)

Do university ethics classes influence students’ real-world moral choices? We aimed to conduct the first controlled study of the effects of ordinary philosophical ethics classes on real-world moral choices, using non-self-report, non-laboratory behavior as the dependent measure. We assigned 1332 students in four large philosophy classes to either an experimental group on the ethics of eating meat or a control group on the ethics of charitable giving. Students in each group read a philosophy article on their assigned topic and (...) optionally viewed a related video, then met with teaching assistants for 50-minute group discussion sections. They expressed their opinions about meat ethics and charitable giving in a follow-up questionnaire (1032 respondents after exclusions). We obtained 13,642 food purchase receipts from campus restaurants for 495 of the students, before and after the intervention. Purchase of meat products declined in the experimental group (52% of purchases of at least $4.99 contained meat before the intervention, compared to 45% after) but remained the same in the control group (52% both before and after). Ethical opinion also differed, with 43% of students in the experimental group agreeing that eating the meat of factory farmed animals is unethical compared to 29% in the control group. We also attempted to measure food choice using vouchers, but voucher redemption rates were low and no effect was statistically detectable. It remains unclear what aspect of instruction influenced behavior. (shrink)

Carne Coltivata: Etica dell’agricoltura cellulare by Luca Lo Sapio criti-cally explores the ethical, environmental, and cultural ramifications of cellular agricul-ture, mainly cultivated meat. Through a philosophical lens, Lo Sapio evaluates the po-tential of this technology to address ethical concerns tied to traditional meat production, such as animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and health implications. However, the book also critiques the potential cultural and ecological consequences of detaching meat production from traditional agricultural practices. Lo Sapio’s discourse navigates the complex (...) interplay between technological progress and the intrinsic value of natural life processes, urging a balanced consideration of cultivated meat’s implications on glob-al food cultures, food sovereignty, and the sanctity of life. (shrink)

The moral status of animals is a subject of controversy both within and beyond academic philosophy, especially regarding the question of whether and when it is ethical to eat meat. A commitment to animal rights and related notions of animal protection is often thought to entail a plant-based diet, but recent philosophical work challenges this view by arguing that, even if animals warrant a high degree of moral standing, we are permitted - or even obliged - to eat (...) class='Hi'>meat. Andy Lamey provides critical analysis of past and present dialogues surrounding animal rights, discussing topics including plant agriculture, animal cognition, and in vitro meat. He documents the trend toward a new kind of omnivorism that justifies meat-eating within a framework of animal protection, and evaluates for the first time which forms of this new omnivorism can be ethically justified, providing crucial guidance for philosophers as well as researchers in culture and agriculture. (shrink)

There is a simple but powerful argument against the human practice of raising and killing animals for food (RKF for short). It goes like this: 1. RKF is extremely bad for animals. 2. RKF is only trivially good for human beings Therefore, 3. RKF should be stopped. While many consider this argument decisive, not everyone is convinced. There have been four main lines of objection to it. In this paper, I provide new responses to these four objections.

Supplemental zinc in fattening lambs improves their health, performance, and meat quality. However, the Zn effect on grazing animals combined with different levels of concentrate should be known unknown. The objective was to evaluate the Zn-organic effect in the diet of grazing lambs supplemented with two levels of concentrate on growth, dry matter (DM) intake, carcass traits, body composition, meat quality, and fatty acid profile in Longissimus dorsi muscle. Twenty-eight lambs were used in a factorial arrangement of two (...) levels of concentrate (C) feed intake (C-0.75 and C-1.5% of live weight) and two Zn-Met levels (0 and 80 ppm Zn kg−1 DM) on the grazing of Lolium perenne L. Digestibility and dry matter intake, weight gain, and productive performance were measured. At the end of the fattening period (90 d), the lambs were slaughtered and the carcass traits, body composition, instrumental quality, and lipid profile of meat were evaluated. The effect of treatment (T), measurement period (P), and T × P interaction was observed (p < 0.05) for dry matter intake (DMI). For the final live weight (FLW) and daily weight gain (DWG), there was an effect (p < 0.05) of T and P, with Zn-80 ppm + C-1.5% treatment being greater. The live weight at slaughter (LWS) and leg length (LL) showed an effect (p < 0.05) of C × Zn. Zn-80 ppm + C-1.5% treatment was higher in the kidney fat, empty body weight, carcass fat, fat and retained energy but lower in protein content (p < 0.05). The physicochemical characteristics and fatty acid content of meat were not affected (p > 0.05). It can be concluded that the concentrated-organic zinc synergy in grazing lambs improved the performance, weight gain, and body composition, which resulted in heavier carcasses with greater amounts of fat, protein, and energy deposited. Furthermore, the physical and chemical meat traits were not affected, but the n-3 fatty acid content and n-3/n-6 ratio in Longissimus dorsi was affected by the Zn level supplemented. (shrink)

Goat farming is one of the fastest growing activities in terms of quality of its products. In this scenario, the Boer breed is the most important for the goat meat industry worldwide as it specializes in the production of quality meat, where the animals are slaughtered early and with satisfactory zootechnical indexes. Considering this favorable scenario, it was decided to evaluate the quality characteristics of the carcass and meat of these animals; then, 20 Boer goats were housed (...) and distributed in groups where one group received a diet based on hay ad libitum and fixed amounts of corn meal and soybean meal in compliance with the requirements of maintenance and weight gain; the other group was housed in different paddocks daily and received only the roughage present in the pasture. It was observed that the animals tended to present larger posterior cuts (loin and leg) with no significant difference between the feeding regimes. The animals fed with concentrate accumulated more subcutaneous fat compared to the animals under grazing. The meat of grazing animals showed higher glycolytic potential and shear force (FC), however, it had lower final pH than the meat of animals fed with concentrate. It was also possible to verify a ratio of fatty acids from intramuscular fat 4 times higher in the carcass of animals under concentrated regime in comparison to the carcass of animals under rotational grazing. With this study, it can be stated that, through the adopted feed management, the quality characteristics of the carcass and meat and, consequently, their organoleptic attributes, can be influenced, having effects on the goat meat market. (shrink)

Forty lambs with 90 ± 5 days of age; 24 ± 3 kg initial BW; were confined in a feedlotfor 60 days and assigned two different diets, without or with soy lecithin. The animals were slaughtered, and the carcasses were kept in a cold chamber for 24 h, at 2ºC, and were measured for carcass yield, chemical composition of the meat, lipid oxidation and fatty acid profile. The experimental design was completely randomized, data were analyzed using SAS, and compared (...) with the means by the Student Test at 5% probabilities. The use of soy lecithin improve daily weight gain (kg/d, P < 0.05) and reduced hot and cold carcass yield (P > 0.05), but it did not alter other carcass characteristics with pH, temperature, loin area, subcutaneous fat thickness. The moisture, protein, ethereal extract and mineral of meat has not been altered by the soy lecithin (P>0.05). The results was same for lipid oxidation (P > 0.05). In the fatty acid profile, only C17:1c9 and C18:2t acids were altered (P < 0.05). The study indicates that soy lecithin can be used safely in animal feed as it does not negatively affect the quality of the meat and carcass of the animal, ensuring the production of food safety for the consumer. (shrink)

This paper presents how Carrie Jenkins' account of the currently popular ideology of romance is a challenge for John Rawls's theory of justice, or one way in which it is. The paper is written as an imitation of the philosopher, sociologist and psychoanalytic theorist Renata Salecl. (Some anticipated reactions (more pleasant ones): "This is not Salecl, but we cannot explain why, we just feel it"; "This is not Salecl, but we have no incentive to enter into details in order to (...) explain why"; "This is Salecl enough if it were by various academics or freelance writers, but this role is not available for you." “We in continental Europe are holists not atomists, so you cannot be Salecl in this way without being so in a number of other ways.”) NOTE: you need to download the PDF for the paper probably; this is the abstract. (shrink)

The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in the quality of the Longissimus thoracis et lumborum (LTL) muscle in young suckling rams of the Kamieniec breed administered a probiotic preparation. Beginning at 11 days of age, lambs in the experimental group received an aqueous solution of the tested probiotic (Lactobacillus plantarum - 2 serotypes, Bifidobacterium animalis, Lactobacillus raminosus) per os for 30 days. The dose of the probiotic was adjusted for lamb age: 11–20 days - 1 g, 21–30 (...) days - 2 g, 31–40 days - 3 g. The viable count per g of the probiotic was 109 CFU. At the end of the experiment, lambs of the control (C, n = 6) and experimental (E, n = 6) groups were slaughtered, and samples of their LTL muscles were subjected to analyses. In group E, the LTL muscle had a lower (P ≤ 0.05) pH value, and a lower (P ≤ 0.05) contribution of yellowness (b*) to the color. A sensory analysis of lamb meat in group E revealed its lower (P ≤ 0.05) juiciness, and a tendency (P > 0.05) towards higher desirability of aroma and taste, lower intensity of these attributes, and higher tenderness. In group E, intra - muscular fat (IMF) was characterized by higher (P ≤ 0.05) proportions of fatty acid C18:1 cis9 and total MUFAs, a higher (P ≤ 0.05) MUFA/SFA ratio, and higher (P ≤ 0.05) nutritional value. In group C, IMF had higher (P ≤ 0.05) concentrations of fatty acids C18:3 and C20:1. The results of this study indicate that 30-day supplementation with the tested probiotic improves meat quality in very young lambs of the Kamieniec breed. (shrink)

This article is concerned with choices that parents or guardians make about the food they give to their children. Those with primary responsibility for the care of young children determine the set of foods that their children eat and have a significant impact on children’s subsequent dietary choices, both in later childhood and in adulthood. I argue that parents have a morally significant reason not to feed meat to their children, which stems from their fiduciary responsibility for the child’s (...) moral development. This should, at a minimum, be factored into parental decisions about their children’s diet. In the absence of compelling countervailing reasons, it will mean that parents should not, in an all-things-considered sense, feed meat to their children. This claim does not rely upon the obviously contentious claim that it is morally wrong to eat meat. Instead, the fact that children, when adults, may reasonably themselves come to believe that consuming meat is wrong gives parents morally compelling reasons to avoid acting in ways which may have the predictable consequence of corrupting the moral character of those for whom they are responsible. (shrink)

In this paper, I shall argue for Moral Cannibalism, namely the view that cannibalism is morally mandatory, at least for some meat-eaters animals, given some acceptable assumptions about justice and moral duty. Such an incredible claim will be preceded by a short exposition of the rationale for Moral Vegetarianism and for its adversary position Moral Omnivorism (§1), then I will briefly present Moral Cannibalism (§2), and finally I will discuss two arguments for it, a positive one (§3) and a (...) negative one (§4): on the one hand, justice between animal species might imply that it is morally better for some carnivorous species to eat the members of their own species rather than members of other species; on the other hand, the moral wrongness of cannibalism lacks a satisfactory ground. (shrink)

Zangwill (“Our Moral Duty to Eat Meat”, “If you care about animals, you should eat them”) has argued that we have a duty to eat meat. In this paper I first show that Zangwill’s essays contain two distinct conclusions: (1) a rather weak thesis that his argument is officially supposed to establish, and (2) a much stronger, advertised thesis that his argument is not officially supposed to establish, but on whose basis he gives concrete recommendations for action and (...) launches polemic attacks on vegans, animal rights activists, and others. Consequently, I argue that Zangwill is likely culpable of some combination of epistemic failure, objectionable carnist activism, and trolling. In the second part of this paper I rebut Zangwill’s argument proper. I conclude by identifying some important issues in the vicinity concerning the suffering of wildlife and population ethics generalized to both human and non-human animals. (shrink)

Vegans do not eat meat. This statement seems so obvious that one might be tempted to claim that it is analytically true. Yet several authors argue that the underlying logic of veganism warrants – perhaps even demands – eating meat. I begin by considering an important principle that has been important in motivating vegan meat-eating, related to an obligation to reduce or minimise harm. I offer an alternative, rights-based view, and suggest that while this might support an (...) obligation to eat meat in some cases, it fundamentally changes how we should view the arguments on offer. I consider such arguments with respect to three categories of animals: cows, crickets and clams. Rather than assigning importance to the particular choice of animal, readers should take each of these to stand for particular categorisations of non-human animals: animals who certainly have some capacities that we regard as morally relevant in humans, such as sentience, or the capacity for desires (‘cows’); animals who might have one or more of these capacities, but where current research is inconclusive (‘crickets’); and animals that are, according to our current knowledge, extremely unlikely to have any of these capacities (‘clams’). (shrink)

This study evaluates the effects of Tenebrio molitor meal (TMM) as an alternative to conventional plant-based (soybean meal, SBM) and animal-based (fishmeal, FM) protein sources on blood parameters, growth and slaughter performance, carcass traits, and meat quality of feedlot lambs. A total of 24 Suffolk lambs [3 months of age, 21.4 ± 1.08 kg body weight (BW)] were allocated for 60 days to three treatments (8 lambs per treatment) in a completely randomized design, as follows: 1- SBM at 150 (...) g/kg dry matter (DM)], 2- FM at 50 g/kg DM, and 3- TMM at 60 g/kg DM. Feed intake, BW, and blood samples were collected on days 0, 20, 40, and 60. At the end of the trial, the lambs were slaughtered for carcass evaluation and meat quality assessment. The average daily gain was higher for SBM-fed than for TMM-fed lambs (0.25 and 0.21 kg/d; P < 0.001). Plasma levels of creatinine were higher in FM-fed when compared to SBM-fed lambs, while TMM-fed lambs showed intermediate values (88.72, 85.69 and 87.57 μmol/L, respectively; P < 0.05). The hot and cold carcass weights (15.99 and 15.52 kg vs 18.49 and 18.03 kg) and yields (44.31 and 43.02 % vs 46.03 and 44.87 %) were lower in the TMM group compared with the SBM group (P < 0.05). The dietary treatment had no effect (P > 0.05) on meat pH, color, texture, water loss and contents of fat, protein, and moisture. Further research should evaluate optimal inclusion levels of TMM in combination with conventional protein sources to avoid negative economic implications. (shrink)

Many approaches have been taken regarding this topic, some of them are anthropological or scientific that pursue the understanding of why we eat meat, but from the philosophical lens this question is solved in the field of applied ethics, which is the area that debate about the moral status of animals (nonhuman animals) and where different theorizations that tried to explain the relationship between animals and humans and the examination of the morality of meat consumption take place. Some (...) of these approaches could be find within the concepts of animal rights, vegetarianism, animal cruelty and so on. (shrink)

Currently, Non-human animals have the popular identity of beingregarded as food on the plate or tool for exploitation. In response, philosopherslike Peter Singer and Tom Regan objected from the place sentience andentitlement to rights. However, this issue persists, where some scholars calledthe pretentious claim of change in practice to be a modification of theirapproach to exploit, which we consider, is due to the failure to emphasis onthe ontology of these animals. Hence, this research paper aims to approach itfrom an African (...) perspective of spirituality, particularly from the Yorubaworldview. To the Yoruba, the environment, just like humans, has itsrespective spirits, purposes, and relevance. It is not to be treated with disdainor abused. In the case of animals, they, in their traditional settings, have alwaystreated animals with respect and reverence, considering their ontologicalbeing. Even if used for the purpose of consumption, or sacrifices, animals aretreated with a certain dignity, and not just as meats, as against the unethicalview of animals, most especially the consumable ones as mere foods on theplate. As a framework for ensuring the responsible consumption of animals inpresent time, this research paper presents the Yoruba approach to givingreverence to animals, which is well-documented in their folklores. It surveyshow within the Yoruba settings animals are treated with dignity and reverence,considering their communal belonging, spiritual consciousness, andecological relevance, all of which would contribute to the global walk toenvironmental sustainability. (shrink)

This paper is a two-part project. First, I reject the analogous relationship between the Holocaust and slaughterhouses (found in the anti-meat novel The Lives of Animals) and cross-species analogical thinking entirely; instead, I opt for modes of analysis that can examine the specific circumstances of animals within slaughterhouses. Secondly, I assert that a socio-economic Marxist analysis is the best prism in which to recognize the suffering of pre-slaughter animals and the causation of their suffering (the ostensibly necessary circulation and (...) production of the meat-commodity). (shrink)

This well chosen collection of essays written by recognized scholars addresses many of the intriguing aspects concerning the controversy over meat consumption. These aspects include not only eating meat, but also hunting animals, breeding, feeding, killing, and shredding them for our use, buying meat, the economics of the meat industry, the understanding of predation and food webs in ecology, and the significance of animals for issues about nutrition, gender, wealth, and cultural autonomy. Dombrowski rightly notes that (...) the contemporary debate regarding philosophical vegetarianism has been profoundly shaped by the historical figures who have rejected or embraced the anthropocentrism entrenched in Western thought. Three anthropological-medical essays compare meat with vegetarian diets. Eight essays treat the recent philosophical debate over the moral status of animals and whether vegetarianism is obligatory. Several essays discuss religious views on meat-eating and vegetarianism. Three essays explore meat, patriarchy, and the exploitation of nature and animals with respect to race, gender, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic class. The last four essays debate how to understand predation, environmental ethics, and animal protection. This collection is a fine entrée for all readers of this journal, since the debate over meat must by now figure into every thinking person’s diet. (shrink)

In this interesting book Aronson discusses lapsed vegetarians, which she dubs lapsos. She argues that lapsos struggle with the implications of eating meat, and in so doing their spirits are strengthened. She offers the book not as a polemic, but rather a peace offering to soften the debate over meat eating, trace ambiguity and nuance, and suggest that being a vegetarian should not be so easy.

The bite of the lone star tick spreads alpha‐gal syndrome (AGS), a condition whose only effect is the creation of a severe but nonfatal red meat allergy. Public health departments warn against lone star ticks and AGS, and scientists are working to develop an inoculation to AGS. Herein, we argue that if eating meat is morally impermissible, then efforts to prevent the spread of tickborne AGS are also morally impermissible. After explaining the symptoms of AGS and how they (...) are transmitted via ticks, we argue that tickborne AGS is a moral bioenhancer if and when it motivates people to stop eating meat. We then defend what we call the Convergence Argument: If x‐ing prevents the world from becoming a significantly worse place, doesn't violate anyone's rights, and promotes virtuous action or character, then x‐ing is strongly pro tanto obligatory; promoting tickborne AGS satisfies each of these conditions. Therefore, promoting tickborne AGS is strongly pro tanto obligatory. It is presently feasible to genetically edit the disease‐carrying capacity of ticks. If this practice can be applied to ticks carrying AGS, then promoting the proliferation of tickborne AGS is morally obligatory. (shrink)

When people choose what to eat, one of the main reasons is the taste of the food. Many people in the world do not have much choice in their diets given their poverty, but in the Western world, the average consumer enjoys an overwhelming variety of affordable foods. The focus of this entry is the role of taste in the food choices of those who do have a choice. With more choices comes more responsibility; deciding what to eat has a (...) moral dimension as well since food choices have an enormous impact on the agent's health, the environment, and the well-being of other humans and animals. The core puzzle posed by taste is its involvement in the most common and ubiquitous cases of what look like weakness of will. Many people find certain foods morally bad because of their presumed or genuinely harmful consequences. For example, one might intend to become a vegetarian if one cares for animals and wants them not to suffer. However, despite of the intention, the person may fail to do so because of her high preferences for the taste of meat. Other examples include the wish to eat healthier or less fattening foods, but somehow the intention gets trumped because one is unable to resist the good taste of those foods. Tastes thus seem to have much more motivating force than often acknowledged. The ethical dimension of the issue is evident when one considers the failure of large masses of people to eat foods that they know to be better for themselves, the environment, the animals, and other people. The entry is structured as follows. Section "What Is Taste?" clarifies the notion of "taste." Section "Tastes as Reasons" discusses the relation of tastes and reasons. Section "The Puzzle of Unethical Food Choices" introduces the puzzle of unethical food choices. Sections "Bad Food Choices as a Consequence of Weakness of the Will" and "Bad Food as the Subjectively Rational Choice" discuss two alternative answers to the puzzle. Section "Are People Egoists?" considers whether ethical egoism might explain the unethical food choices. Section "Ethical Gourmandism" summarizes Korsmeyer's ethical gourmandism which holds that the taste of food depends on its moral properties. Section "Is There a Duty to Train One's Taste?" asks whether there might be a moral duty to train oneself to not prefer the bad foods. (shrink)

The norms of simplicity, convenience, unfussiness, and self-control guide Diogenes the Cynic, Zeno of Citium, Chrysippus, Seneca, Musonius Rufus, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius in approaching food. These norms generate the precept that meat and dainties are luxuries, so Stoics should eschew them. Considerations of justice, environmental harm, anthropogenic global climate change, sustainability, food security, feminism, harm to animals, personal health, and public health lead contemporary Stoics to condemn the meat industrial complex, debunk carnism, and select low input, plant-based (...) foods. (shrink)

Taken collectively, consumer food choices have a major impact on animal lives, human lives, and the environment. But it is far from clear how to move from facts about the power of collective consumer demand to conclusions about what one ought to do as an individual consumer. In particular, even if a large-scale shift in demand away from a certain product (e.g., factory-farmed meat) would prevent grave harms or injustices, it typically does not seem that it will make a (...) difference whether one refrains from purchasing that product oneself. Most present-day food companies operate at too large a scale for a single purchase to make a difference to production decisions. If that is true, then it is not clear what point there is in refraining. This is “the problem of collective impact.” This chapter explores a range of proposals for how to solve this problem. (shrink)

It is supererogatory to refrain from eating meat, just as it is supererogatory to refrain from driving cars, living in apartments, and wearing makeup, for the welfare of animals. If all animals are equal, and if nonhuman omnivores, such as bears and baboons, are justified in killing the members of other species, such as gazelles and buffaloes, for food, humans are also justified in killing the members of other species, such as cows, pigs, and chickens, for food. In addition, (...) it is fair for humans to eat animals because humans are also eaten by animals. (shrink)