 Subjects -> PHILOSOPHY (Total: 762 journals)
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | | The end of the list has been reached or no journals were found for your choice. |
|
|
- Calculating the Impacts of Food Gentrification in Portland, Oregon
-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: While there is much research about the extreme gentrification currently occurring in most major cities around the United States, the economic impacts of food gentrification remain unstudied. Understanding how profits are lost by people of color in the restaurant industry helps to realize how food, restaurants, and grocery stores play a larger role in accelerating or even triggering gentrification in neighborhoods. This paper explores the cultural and economic impacts of food gentrification in Portland using data collection and data analysis. This data shows the quantitative impacts of gentrification in the food industry and how it contributes to the displacement of communities of color in Portland.
PubDate: 2023-04-24
- Healthy Eating Policy, Public Reason, and the Common Good
-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: The contribution of food and diet to health is much disputed in the background culture in the US. Many commercial or ideological advocates make claims, sometimes with health as a primary goal, but often accompanied by commercial or ideological interests. These compete culturally with authoritative recommendations made by publicly funded groups. For public policy concerning diet and health to be legitimate, not only should it not be inconsistent with the scientific evidence, but also it should not be inconsistent with the political environment. Healthy Eating Policy and Political Philosophy (HEPPP), by Barnhill and Bonotti (2022), addresses how policy in this complex area might be justified. In the present essay I highlight some important strengths of their work and also make some points about how it might be clarified or enlarged in scope. The great strength of HEPPP is that it emphasizes the role of a political philosophy in evaluating the legitimacy of public policy. They presume a well-off liberal democratic state, and specifically they draw on Rawls’ political liberalism, as developed in Political Liberalism (PL). One of several interlocking technical concepts developed in this book, public reason speaks to the boundaries of what should be acceptable in public deliberation about constitutional essentials and basic justice. HEPPP explores the application of an extension of public reason to the justification of policies related to “healthy eating.“ Public reason has two components, both of which pertain to a common understanding among citizens: (1) a common understanding of the principles and ideals that are the foundation of the political society, and (2) a common understanding of the standards that govern reason and evidence, including common sense. HEPPP argues that even though for diet and health the complexity of the scientific evidence goes far beyond anything like common sense for a typical citizen, the technical idea of “accessibility” of the scientific evidence justifies reliance on it within the concept of public reason. I question this accessibility argument about scientific evidence and public reason because the nature of the population-level epidemiological evidence about diet and health is that it often includes judgments that are based on arguable interpretations, framing incidence in terms of risk and prevention; thus the issue is more than one of potential accessibility of scientific evidence. Nevertheless, evaluation and consideration of the scientific evidence is of obvious practical importance in policy deliberation concerning policy related to what Rawls call “ordinary legislation.“ Even though public reason applied to healthy eating policy may not be as pertinent as it is for constitutional essentials and basic justice, and even though it is unlikely to result in a “correct outcome,“ invoking reasons based on political values and principles held in common has important value even in these deliberations about more ordinary questions. That value applies not to the specifics of the particular issue, but to the larger context for the particular policy being deliberated, as a potential contribution to an overlapping consensus that is stable for the right reasons. If this vision of political liberalism were achieved, then contentious debate about health eating policy and its scientific basis could occur within that context and be resolved within the basic political structure. Because public health and political liberalism have a common concern for a good at the population level, they have an underlying affinity. Healthy eating policies could be evaluated in two not-unrelated ways: based on their instrumental contribution to the good of the public body of citizens as population-level health, and according to their stabilizing contribution to an overlapping consensus among citizens. In this latter way a policy would contribute to a conditional integral common good a la Sulmasy, one that has the prospect of conditioning a political system, and by doing so create the conditions of the possibility of a constitutive integral common good that is constituted on the right reasons for allegiance to an overlapping consensus. To conclude with reference to HEPPP, public reason may play an important function with respect to the political common good, even as debates about the weight and meaning of scientific evidence from epidemiology play out in deliberation of ordinary legislation concerning healthy eating.
PubDate: 2023-04-17
- We have Some Calves left! Socially Accepted Alternatives to the Current
Handling of Male Calves from Dairy Production-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Consumers’ actual knowledge about modern food production is limited, and their judgment is often guided by assumptions or associations that are not necessarily in line with reality. Consumers’ rather unrealistic idea of livestock farming is driven by beautiful and romanticized pictures in advertising. If confronted with the reality of modern livestock farming, consumers’ responses are mainly negative. So far, dairy farming still has a more positive image and thus is less affected by public criticism. However, if made public, some of the current production practices in dairy farming have the potential to reduce consumer acceptance which in turn can have a tremendous effect on farmers. A particularly urgent topic is the handling of male dairy calves. Such calves are often treated as surplus animals due to their low genetic merits for meat, with the risk of resulting in the deprivation of animal welfare. To maintain consumer acceptance of dairy products and find socially accepted alternatives for the handling of male calves, insights into consumer perception of current and future production practices in dairy farming are needed. Thus, the aim of this study is to analyze how consumers evaluate the current situation of male dairy calves and alternatives in male calf management. A quantitative online survey, representative for the German population in terms of gender, age, education, region, and income, was carried out with 1 194 participants in February 2022. Overall, 60% of participants were not aware of the fact that male dairy calves are less appropriate for fattening purposes. Respondents saw a clear need for alternative methods for handling male calves from dairy production. More, our results show that the use of sexed semen encounters consumer resistance, while other alternatives that were evaluated as more natural were more accepted. A cluster analysis identified 3 distinct consumer segments labelled “sexed semen opponents” (31.6%), “undecided” (30.4%), and “proponents of all alternatives” (38.0%) that differed in their acceptance of alternative handling practices of male dairy calves. The results emphasize the gap between consumers’ expectations and reality on farms and the importance of considering consumer preferences when developing future pathways for dairy farming.
PubDate: 2023-04-17
- Cultured Human Meat Acceptability: From Inviolability of Human Body to
Prevention of Induced Human Meat Craving-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Cultured meat is a lab grown product that aims to tackle the cravings of omnivores who struggle to switch to a plant-based diet, while still being friendly to animals and the environment. Possibly, in time, the curiosity to apply this technology towards human meat production will emerge. However, when presented with the thought of eating cultured human meat potential consumers’ reaction greatly varies from pure disgust to indifference to excitement. This instinctive response indicates a lack of preformed judgements towards the topic. Without a clear vision on the possibility of cultured human meat, scattered and uncertain regulations will fail to uphold paramount moral values. The risk is that we would either dig into this option out of excitement, or ban it without convincing motivations. The ethical theories of deontology and consequentialism can be followed to investigate this divisive issue. With an evaluation based on disgust I argue that the deontological perspective is mostly concerned with values of identity and humanness, while with a chain-reaction reasoning I argue that consequentialism would be concerned with health safety, privacy and equality. I conclude that cultured human meat is not acceptable.
PubDate: 2023-03-31
- Identity and Food Choice: You Are What You Eat'
-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: We use Marya Schechtman’s Narrative Self-Constitution View to support the widespread idea that food can contribute to the construction and expression of our identities and be used to understand others. What foods we consume can be one such way to construct our identities as food itself can have different values: ethically sourced, healthy, culturally significant, etc. However, the ability to constitute one’s own identity in this way depends on the ability to autonomously choose what we consume. We argue that most consumers have much less control over their own consumption habits than is typically assumed (indeed, much of the literature on food and identity relies on the assumption) and thus consumers have diminished autonomy with respect to identity-constitution. We focus on the effects of three such autonomy compromising practices: food impositions, which are social pressures on food choice; manipulative marketing; and impediments to access. Together these practices diminish second-order endorsement of food-related values, generate false beliefs about what one is eating, and create social, economic, or physical barriers which limit access to desired foods. There are, however, spaces where consumers are fighting back against cultural norms and agribusiness and changing their own relationship(s) with consumption, thereby exercising increased autonomy over their food and their identity.
PubDate: 2023-02-02
DOI: 10.1007/s41055-022-00118-y
- Questioning Customs and Traditions in Culinary Ethics: the Case of Cruel
and Environmentally Damaging Food Practices-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Culinary traditions and food practices are at the center of our daily lives and therefore constitute an important part of culture. Whether they are part of significant rituals or simply routinely enacted, they tell us something about the way we relate to each other and to the non-human world. In other words, food practices have an ethical dimension. Our paper focuses on the possibility to make objective ethical assessments of problematic cultural practices rooted in culinary traditions as a reply to arguments associated with an ethical relativism according to which cultures produce ethical systems that are self-validating and therefore that cannot be criticized objectively. Drawing from examples involving animal cruelty and production methods harmful to the environment, we argue that it is possible to judge ethically questionable food practices from an objectivist standpoint inspired by moral progress, in contrario to a relativist point of view. Following a short discussion of ethical relativism, we present the outline of an acceptability test for questionable food practices and use it to analyse the case of the dog meat industry in South Korea.
PubDate: 2023-01-06
DOI: 10.1007/s41055-022-00116-0
- Justice in Finnish Food Policies
-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: The need to create more sustainable food systems calls for careful attention to justice in making the transition. However, to achieve a just transition and create policies to support the goal of developing sustainable food systems, we need more knowledge of the ways current policies tackle justice. This knowledge can reveal blind spots and development needs and increase the transparency of potentially conflicting goals, which is essential for designing just transition policies. From the normative perspective of food justice, a food system should produce three principal outcomes: food security and nutrition, livelihoods and fair income, and environmental sustainability. In this article, we take these outcomes as the starting point to study how they relate to the distributive, procedural, and recognitive aspects of food justice in the context of Finnish food policies. Our data consist of Finnish policy strategies relating to the national food system and data from interviews with experts involved in the policy processes. Our results suggest that food security and farmer livelihoods have dominated justice related considerations at the cost of environmental sustainability. Although these are important for distributive justice and for recognizing vulnerabilities, the current setting reveals risks regarding the possibilities of transitioning to a low-carbon food system. The invisibility of the often-invisible groups is also notable in the policy documents. To promote justice more broadly, there should be greater emphasis on environmental sustainability as well as procedural and recognitive justice and opportunities for diverse people to participate in food policymaking.
PubDate: 2023-01-06
DOI: 10.1007/s41055-022-00117-z
- Values of Australian Meat Consumers Related to Sheep and Beef Cattle
Welfare: What Makes a Good Life and a Good Death'-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: There has been growing global interest in livestock animal welfare. Previous research into attitudes towards animal welfare has focused on Europe and the United States, with comparatively little focus on Australia, which is an important location due to the prominent position of agriculture economically and culturally. In this article, we present results from qualitative research on how Australian meat consumers conceptualise sheep and beef cattle welfare. The study was conducted in two capital cities (Melbourne, Victoria and Adelaide, South Australia) and a much smaller rural centre (Toowoomba, Queensland) using focus groups (involving 40.9% of participants) and mall-intercept interviews (59.1% of participants), totalling 66 participants. Qualitative analysis highlights that participants had clear ideas of what it means for an animal to live a ‘good life’ and experience a ‘good death,’ with their beliefs strongly tied to their expectations and cultural understandings of what Australian agriculture ‘should be.’ In response to open-ended questions, participants expressed attitudes that relied on romanticised visions of the ‘rural idyll’ as seen in frequent discussions about what is ‘normal’ for sheep meat and beef production, and relatedly, what count as ‘natural behaviours.’ Many participants rejected anything associated with the ‘other,’ classifying it as not ‘normal’: we argue that which is not considered normal, including intensive production, foreign ownership, and halal slaughter practices, appear to place participants’ conceptualizations of an animal’s ‘good death,’ and in turn the potential for a ‘good life,’ at risk.
PubDate: 2022-12-15
DOI: 10.1007/s41055-022-00114-2
- The Curious Case of Baby Formula in the United States in 2022: Cries for
Urgent Action Months after Silence in the Midst of Alarm Bells-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: The shortages of baby formula in the US resulting from the voluntary recall of contaminated products and shutdown of manufacturing facility in February led to increases in the national out-of-stock rate of the baby formula from 18 to 70% over the summer of 2022. This study utilizes social media listening and data analysis to examine how online media reactions to the physical shortage changed over time and how the reaction to the shortage differed from to the initial recall announcements. Improved understanding of reactions to emergent issues in foods through this lens may improve communication efficiency to mitigate potential consequences.
PubDate: 2022-12-06
DOI: 10.1007/s41055-022-00115-1
- How Easy is it to Feed Everyone' Economic Alternatives to Eliminate
Human Nutrition Deficits-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: One of the UN’s 17 sustainable development goals is to end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition by 2030. This goal will be missed. Global hunger is still highly prevalent. In 2021, about 821 million people experience undernourishment every day and more are at risk. Is this necessary' This article calculates the investments needed for both acute and sustainable systems to alleviate food insecurity and decrease global caloric deficits. These economic values are then contextualized by comparing funds spent by individuals and governments on unnecessary or counterproductive products. The results show that divergence of even small fractions of these funds from food waste, tobacco, alcohol, or weapons within the U.S. alone could supplement the caloric needs of those in areas with high levels of food insecurity. America’s net-negative industries whose advertisements and sales could be taxed to improve America’s life expectancy could fund the yearly cost to feed anywhere from 17.1% to 1,467.9% of malnourished people directly, or contribute more than 100% of the estimated cost to sustainably end global hunger. It is concluded that reallocating funds that are detrimental to the U.S. population is a path to achieving food security and sustainable food production for the entire globe.
PubDate: 2022-11-21
DOI: 10.1007/s41055-022-00113-3
- Anne Barnhill and Matteo Bonotti: Healthy Eating Policy and Political
Philosophy: A Public Reason Approach-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
PubDate: 2022-10-31
DOI: 10.1007/s41055-022-00112-4
- Healthy Eating Policy: Racial Liberalism, Global Connections and Contested
Science-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: The challenges to designing and implementing ethically and politically meaningful eating policies are many and complex. This article provides a brief overview of Anne Barnhill and Matteo Bonotti’s Healthy Eating Policy and Political Philosophy: A Public Reason Approach while also critically engaging with the place of racial justice, global interconnectedness, and debates over science in thinking about ethics and politics of public health nutrition and policy. I do not aim to burden Barnhill and Bonotti with the responsibility to fully address these issues, but considering the interconnection of these issues and the ever pressing effects of climate change on local and global food systems, we collectively need to turn to these difficult and pressing questions about what a just food system looks like, what concerns are centred, and who is left out. I group these engagements with Barnhill and Bonotti under three headings: racial liberalism, global food system, and contested nutrition science. I conclude with some remarks about locality.
PubDate: 2022-10-28
DOI: 10.1007/s41055-022-00111-5
- Subjective Beliefs About Farm Animal Welfare Labels and Milk
Anticonsumption-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Food labels serve important informational and signaling purposes however, the subjective beliefs (halos) associated with ethical labels such as farm animal welfare (FAW) labels and their influence on anti-consumption behavior are not well-understood. This paper aims to address how subjective beliefs (halos) about FAW labels affect the milk anti-consumption behavior for different segments of consumers. Data (N ~ 1351) from an in-person opt-in survey conducted in the US were used to address the objectives of this study. Information on respondents’ sociodemographic profile, milk choice and perceptions about FAW was collected. Data were analyzed using multivariate regressions. The results show that FAW labels served as heuristic cues for higher environmental quality and health. The presence of labels also evoked a positive feeling (utility) in consumers. The FAW halos impacted milk anti-consumption. The effects however depended on preference type—milk versus plant-based alternative milk beverages. The results highlight the possibility of appealing to the relevant FAW subjective beliefs by stakeholders interested in fostering anti-consumption behavior as a means to achieving more sustainable consumption behavior.
PubDate: 2022-10-04
DOI: 10.1007/s41055-022-00110-6
- Ideal Discussants, Real Food: Questioning the Applicability of Public
Reason Approach in Healthy Eating Policies-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Healthy eating policies have become a hot and thorny domain of public concern because they affect people’s liberties, life prospects, and public expenditures. However, what policies state institutions may legitimately enforce is a controversial matter. Is state paternalism for the sake of public health permissible' Could people be incentivized to eat in a healthier manner' Barnhill and Bonotti’s recent book (Healthy Eating Policy and Political Philosophy) tackle these issues (and others) in a manner that seeks to combine the liberal values of state neutrality and antipaternalism, as well as the effectiveness and legitimacy of food policies. To do so, they rely on the accessibility model of public reason. Although Barnhill and Bonotti’s proposal fills an important gap in the field and the accessibility model of public reason overcomes some strictures of the Rawlsian account, their account of public reason faces some practical challenges. Indeed, the institutionalization of their framework seems to need the figure of a moderator of a deliberative panel. However, this figure would create a tension between the public reason framework and the common requirements of deliberative accounts.
PubDate: 2022-08-10
DOI: 10.1007/s41055-022-00109-z
- Let them Eat Cultured Meat: Diagnosing the Potential for Meat Alternatives
to Increase Inequity-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Given the substantial contribution of livestock agriculture to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, significant changes in that sector will likely occur as part of a comprehensive climate mitigation and adaptation plan. One option for reducing the sector’s climate footprint is the development and introduction of new forms of plant-based and lab-grown meat alternatives that accurately replicate the sensory and nutritional qualities of meat. Since the current global trend is toward increased meat consumption, these products are designed to appeal primarily to meat-eaters (not vegetarians or vegans) with the intention of enticing them to reduce or eliminate their consumption of animal meat. While this technology promises the undeniable benefits of reducing GHG and animal suffering, I argue that its widespread adoption could exacerbate global inequity, particularly between affluent and poor individuals and nations. To make my case, I identify four potential sources of inequity: the creation of luxury foods, an expansion of food deserts, increased economic disparity between the Global North and South, and the awarding of patents on the technology to multinational corporations. In light of economic pressures and dietary trends, it is likely these new meat alternatives will be introduced into the global market. As such, I do not argue against their development, but conclude by outlining some policies aimed at mitigating their negative social impacts and promoting food equity.
PubDate: 2022-08-10
DOI: 10.1007/s41055-022-00108-0
- A Public Justification Framework for Healthy Eating Policies and the
Problems with Institutionalising it-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: In their book Healthy Eating Policy and Political Philosophy: A Public Reason Approach, Matteo Bonotti and Anne Barnhill defend a conception of public reason centred on the notion of accessibility and advance an ethical toolkit public health policy makers can use to ensure they are reasoning publicly when designing healthy eating policies. Finally, they propose to institutionalise the process of public reasoning informed by their ethics framework by designing certain procedures of consultation and deliberation. This article focuses on their institutionalisation and raises some doubts and concerns by arguing that the procedures designed by Bonotti and Barnhill may be counterproductive to some of their aims, in particular with respect to citizens’ control, epistemic injustice, and the conception of citizens as free and equal.
PubDate: 2022-07-29
DOI: 10.1007/s41055-022-00107-1
- Sámi Traditional Knowledge of Reindeer Meat Smoking
-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: Reindeer meat, traditional food and knowledge are vital for the culture, health, and economy of Sámi reindeer herders. Nevertheless, the practices of reindeer meat smoking have barely been part of scientific research or reindeer herding management. We investigated Sámi reindeer herders’ approach to meat smoking in Northern Norway performed in the traditional Sámi tent, the lávvu. The investigation included workshops, interviews, participatory observations, and co-analyze meetings. Our findings reveal a typology of the traditional Sámi smoking practices. Sámi reindeer herders use a variety of wood species and plant parts to control the smoke based on a complex system of traditional knowledge. Yet there is a need for education, industry, and research acknowledging, supporting, and maintaining the Sámi meat-smoking process and associated worldviews, knowledge, and practices to ensure ethical, sustainable, and healthy food production.
PubDate: 2022-07-25
DOI: 10.1007/s41055-022-00106-2
- Why Are They Buying It': United States Consumers’ Intentions When
Purchasing Meat, Eggs, and Dairy With Welfare-related Labels-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: There is widespread and growing concern among U.S. consumers about the treatment of farmed animals, and consumers are consequently paying attention to food product labels that indicate humane production practices. However, labels vary in their standards for animal welfare, and prior research suggests that consumers are confused by welfare-related labels: many shoppers cannot differentiate between labels that indicate changes in the way animals are raised and those that do not. We administered a survey to 1,000 American grocery shoppers to better understand the extent to which consumers purchase and pay more for food with certain labels based on an assumption of welfare improvement. Results showed that 86% of shoppers reported purchasing at least one product with the following labels in the last year: “cage or crate-free”, “free-range”, “pasture-raised”, “natural”, “organic”, “no hormone”, “no antibiotic”, “no rBST”, “humane”, “vegetarian-fed”, “grass-fed”, “farm-raised”. Of those who purchased one of the aforementioned labels, 89% did so because they thought the label indicated higher-welfare production practices, and 79% consciously paid more for the product with the label because they thought that the label indicated better-than-standard animal welfare. However, many of these labels lack uniform standards for the production practices they represent, and some labels represent production practices that do not influence animal welfare, thus the degree of the animal welfare impact of a given label is highly variable. These results indicate that labels need to clearly and accurately specify their animal welfare benefits to improve the consumers’ ability to purchase products that align with their expectations.
PubDate: 2022-06-18
DOI: 10.1007/s41055-022-00105-3
- Moral Reasons for Individuals in High-Income Countries to Limit Beef
Consumption-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Abstract: This paper argues that individuals in many high-income countries typically have moral reasons to limit their beef consumption and consume plant-based protein instead, given the negative effects of beef production and consumption. Beef production is a significant source of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts, high levels of beef consumption are associated with health risks, and some cattle production systems raise animal welfare concerns. These negative effects matter, from a variety of moral perspectives, and give us collective moral reasons to reduce beef production and consumption. But, as some ethicists have argued, we cannot draw a straight line from the ethics of production to the ethics of consumption: even if a production system is morally impermissible, this does not mean that any given individual has moral reasons to stop consuming the products of that system, given how miniscule one individual’s contributions are. This paper considers how to connect those dots. We consider three distinct lines of argument in support of the conclusion that individuals have moral reasons to limit their beef consumption and shift to plant-based protein, and we consider objections to each argument. This argument applies to individuals in high beef-consuming and high greenhouse gas-emitting high-income countries, though we make this argument with a specific focus on the United States.
PubDate: 2022-06-17
DOI: 10.1007/s41055-022-00100-8
- Obituary for Anne Agerkrog Algers
-
Free pre-print version: Loading...
Rate this result:
What is this?
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating.
A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
PubDate: 2022-05-13
DOI: 10.1007/s41055-022-00104-4
|
Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
