Food fight! Davis versus Regan on the ethics of eating beef

Journal of Social Philosophy 38 (2):331–348 (2007)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

One of the starting assumptions in the debate over the ethical status of animals is that someone who is committed to reducing animal suffering should not eat meat. Steven Davis has recently advanced a novel criticism of this view. He argues that individuals who are committed to reducing animal suffering should not adopt a vegetarian or vegan diet, as Tom Regan an other animal rights advocates claim, but one containing free-range beef. To make his case Davis highlights an overlooked form of animal harm, that done to field animals in crop production. Yet while Davis's argument is ingenious and thought-provoking, it is not a successful challenge to vegetarianism and veganism's status as the diets that most advance animal rights. Scientific studies of crop production that Davis draws on document two different forms of harm done to field animals: those that are directly killed by harvesting equipment and those that are killed by other animals. Once this distinction is made explicit, the degree to which such studies pose a problem for animal protection theory considerably weakens. Davis also overlooks philosophically significant forms of harm to human beings that are present in beef production but not crop harvesting. Finally, he bases his argument on the controversial assumption that there is no difference between deliberate and accidental killing - either of animals or people. Although these problems defeat Davis's attempt to offer an immanent critique of Regan's animal rights position, his analysis does have important dietary ramifications that animal advocates should take into account.

Similar books and articles

The sciences of animal welfare.David J. Mellor - 2009 - Ames, Iowa: Wiley-Blackwell. Edited by Emily Patterson-Kane & Kevin J. Stafford.
Animal rights: moral theory and practice.Mark Rowlands - 2009 - New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Animal Ethics: Toward an Ethics of Responsiveness.Kelly Oliver - 2010 - Research in Phenomenology 40 (2):267-280.
The Benefit of Regan's Doubt.Robert Bass - 2016 - In Mylan Engel Jr & Gary Lynn Comstock (eds.), The Moral Rights of Animals. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. pp. 239-256.
The case for animal rights.Tom Regan - 2009 - In Steven M. Cahn (ed.), Exploring ethics: an introductory anthology. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 425-434.
Animal rights: a philosophical defence.Mark Rowlands (ed.) - 1998 - New York: St. Martin's Press.
Popular media and animals.Claire Molloy - 2011 - New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
1,208 (#10,155)

6 months
262 (#8,913)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Andy Lamey
University of California, San Diego

Citations of this work

Field Deaths in Plant Agriculture.Bob Fischer & Andy Lamey - 2018 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 31 (4):409-428.
Bugging the Strict Vegan.Bob Fischer - 2016 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 29 (2):255-263.
Moral vegetarianism.Tyler Doggett - 2018 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Vegetarianism, sentimental or ethical?Jan Deckers - 2009 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 22 (6):573-597.

View all 16 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Vegan diets for women, infants, and children.Ann Reed Mangels & Suzanne Havala - 1994 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 7 (1):111-122.
Does Ethical Meat Eating Maximize Utility?George Schedler - 2005 - Social Theory and Practice 31 (4):499-511.
Least harm: A defense of vegetarianism from Steven Davis's omnivorous proposal. [REVIEW]Gaverick Matheny - 2003 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16 (5):505-511.

Add more references