Abstract
In response to Evelyn Pluhar'sWho Can Be Morally Obligated to Be a Vegetarian? in this journal issue, the author has read all of Pluhar's citations for the accuracy of her claims and had these read by an independent nutritionist. Detailed analysis of Pluhar's argument shows that she attempts to make her case by consistent misappropriation of the findings and conclusions of the studies she cites. Pluhar makes sweeping generalizations from scanty data, ignores causal explanations given by scientists, equates hypothesis with fact, draws false cause conclusions from studies, and in one case claims a conclusion opposite of what the scientist published. Such poor reasoning cannot be the basis of an argument for moral vegetarianism. A broader search of the literature and attention to reviews and textbooks in nutrition shows that each of Pluhar's claims is suspect or incorrect. Pluhar has not undermined my central claims: even if animals have certain rights and well-planned vegetarian diets are safe in complex industrialized societies, these diets cannot be so regarded if the presuppositions of high levels of wealth, education, and medical care do not exist; and, women, children, the aged and some ill persons are at greater risk on restrictive vegan diets. Thus, any duty of moral vegetarianism is not categorical but provisional in nature.
Keywords animal rights  animal welfare  children  diet  moral vegetarianism  scientific reasoning  vegan  vegetarian  women's health
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/BF01966361
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,355
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan - 2009 - In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Noûs. Oxford University Press. pp. 425-434.
The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan - 1983 - University of California Press, C1983.
The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan & Mary Midgley - 1986 - The Personalist Forum 2 (1):67-71.
The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan - 1985 - Human Studies 8 (4):389-392.
Understanding Scientific Reasoning.Ronald N. Giere, John Bickle & Robert F. Mauldin - 1979 - Fort Worth, TX, USA: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

View all 8 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Veganism and Children: Physical and Social Well-Being.Marcus William Hunt - 2019 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 32 (2):269-291.
Discrimination and Bias in the Vegan Ideal.Kathryn Paxton George - 1994 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):19-28.
On Vegetarianism, Morality, and Science: A Counter Reply. [REVIEW]Evelyn B. Pluhar - 1993 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6 (2):185-213.

View all 7 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Vegetarianism, Sentimental or Ethical?Jan Deckers - 2009 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (6):573-597.
Discrimination and Bias in the Vegan Ideal.Kathryn Paxton George - 1994 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):19-28.
Rejoinder to Kathryn Paxton George.Gary E. Varner - 1994 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):83-86.
Vegetarianism, Morality, and Science Revisited.Evelyn Pluhar - 1994 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):77-82.
In Defense of the Vegan Ideal: Rhetoric and Bias in the Nutrition Literature. [REVIEW]Gary E. Varner - 1994 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):29-40.
Who Can Be Morally Obligated to Be a Vegetarian?Evelyn Pluhar - 1992 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 5 (2):189-215.
Vegan Diets for Women, Infants, and Children.Ann Reed Mangels & Suzanne Havala - 1994 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):111-122.
On Vegetarianism, Morality, and Science: A Counter Reply. [REVIEW]Evelyn B. Pluhar - 1993 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6 (2):185-213.
Use and Abuse Revisited: Response to Pluhar and Varner. [REVIEW]Kathryn Paxton George - 1994 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):41-76.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
38 ( #300,887 of 2,519,513 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #407,153 of 2,519,513 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes