@article{ART001933813},
author={Choi Hoon},
title={Can We Advocate Eating Meat While Assigning the Moral Status to Animals?},
journal={Philosophical Investigation},
issn={1598-7213},
year={2014},
volume={36},
pages={207-241},
doi={10.33156/philos.2014.36..007}
TY - JOUR
AU - Choi Hoon
TI - Can We Advocate Eating Meat While Assigning the Moral Status to Animals?
JO - Philosophical Investigation
PY - 2014
VL - 36
IS - null
PB - Institute of philosophy in Chung-Ang Univ.
SP - 207
EP - 241
SN - 1598-7213
AB - The aim of this paper is to examine validity in which the eating meat has been supported between two main powerful standpoints, animal liberation and animal rights theory. Animal liberation theory leaves room behind for objectifying animal as prey for human by the replaceability argument which suggests that if they are raised in similar nature state, killed without any suffering, and replaced by other animals that can enjoy the same amount of pleasure, eating meat can be permitted morally. On the other hand, Steven L. Davis, who is an animal scientist, argues that we must combine eating meat and vegetable based on putting them pasture instead of only vegetable diet if we keep the least harm principle of Tom Regan consistently. So, I try to show that both arguments are likely to be neither plausible nor practical. I would like to point out that certain premises must be required for establishing the replaceability argument. Furthermore, I positively argue that Davis’ argument has invalid supposition. At last, the replaceability argument and Davis’ one can be hardly realized in real life or if they are possibly done, they requires morally and financially strict regulation to animal husbandry and farming.
KW - eating animal;animal liberation theory;animal rights theory;the replaceability argument;Peter Singer;Steven L. Davis
DO - 10.33156/philos.2014.36..007
ER -
Choi Hoon. (2014). Can We Advocate Eating Meat While Assigning the Moral Status to Animals?. Philosophical Investigation, 36, 207-241.
Choi Hoon. 2014, "Can We Advocate Eating Meat While Assigning the Moral Status to Animals?", Philosophical Investigation, vol.36, pp.207-241. Available from: doi:10.33156/philos.2014.36..007
Choi Hoon "Can We Advocate Eating Meat While Assigning the Moral Status to Animals?" Philosophical Investigation 36 pp.207-241 (2014) : 207.
Choi Hoon. Can We Advocate Eating Meat While Assigning the Moral Status to Animals?. 2014; 36 207-241. Available from: doi:10.33156/philos.2014.36..007
Choi Hoon. "Can We Advocate Eating Meat While Assigning the Moral Status to Animals?" Philosophical Investigation 36(2014) : 207-241.doi: 10.33156/philos.2014.36..007
Choi Hoon. Can We Advocate Eating Meat While Assigning the Moral Status to Animals?. Philosophical Investigation, 36, 207-241. doi: 10.33156/philos.2014.36..007
Choi Hoon. Can We Advocate Eating Meat While Assigning the Moral Status to Animals?. Philosophical Investigation. 2014; 36 207-241. doi: 10.33156/philos.2014.36..007
Choi Hoon. Can We Advocate Eating Meat While Assigning the Moral Status to Animals?. 2014; 36 207-241. Available from: doi:10.33156/philos.2014.36..007
Choi Hoon. "Can We Advocate Eating Meat While Assigning the Moral Status to Animals?" Philosophical Investigation 36(2014) : 207-241.doi: 10.33156/philos.2014.36..007
