Folgt aus dem unwert der tierhaltung ein verbot Des fleischkonsums?

Grazer Philosophische Studien 88 (1):257-267 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

It is natural to assume that it can only be morally permissible for consumers to buy meat products if the breeding and killing of animals for the purpose of meat production is morally acceptable. is assumption presupposes a stable and morally relevant connection between the consumption and the production of meat. While both act-consequentialism and the Kantian idea of generalizability initially appear to support that view, neither of them succeeds in establishing a connection of the required kind

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-02-07

Downloads
835 (#17,270)

6 months
125 (#27,879)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Simon Gaus
Humboldt-University, Berlin

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Do I Make a Difference?Shelly Kagan - 2011 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 39 (2):105-141.
It Makes no Difference Whether or Not I Do It.Jonathan Glover & M. Scott-Taggart - 1975 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 49 (1):171 - 209.
It Makes No Difference Whether or Not I Do It.Jonathan Glover & M. Scott-Taggart - 1975 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 49 (1):171-210.

View all 9 references / Add more references