...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of evaluation in clinical practice >The pitfalls of qualified moral veganism. A critique of Jan Deckers′ holistic health approach to animal ethics
【24h】

The pitfalls of qualified moral veganism. A critique of Jan Deckers′ holistic health approach to animal ethics

机译：合格的道德素食主义的陷阱。 批判于1月Deckers的动物道德健康方法

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Abstract I critically examine Jan Deckers′ position in Animal ( De)liberation , where he defends two main views. The first is “qualified moral veganism”: Most humans have a duty to abstain from consuming animal products, even if there are circumstances in which doing so is justified. The author argues, on the one hand, from a pan‐sentientist view that attributes sentience to all elementary entities and their compounds. Thus, all living things (such as animals and plants) have a capacity for positive and negative experiences. On the other hand, he develops a consequentialist view that assigns moral agents the unconditional duty to promote their own “holistic health.” This is partly constituted by the agent's “moral health,” that is, her acting in a morally justified way. On Deckers′ view, moral agents must care for the health of all living entities, give greater weight to the interests of organisms to which they are more closely biologically related, and respect the integrity of nature. Diets containing animal products have a very high negative health impact, because of how they affect the environment, human food security, and the well‐being of nonhuman animals. In addition, even though plants are sentient, they are likely less so than animals, and their interests must be given less weight. Therefore, most humans should shift to a vegan diet. Deckers′ second proposal is that a qualified ban on the consumption of animal products should be enacted. After discarding other alternative strategies, Deckers defends its feasibility relying on data obtained via a series of surveys. Though the argument partly succeeds in developing a coherent account accommodating the author's intuitions, I conclude that his ontological and normative frameworks remain too underdeveloped, his appeal to biological relatedness has implausible implications, and the methodology he uses in defence of his political position is problematic.
机译：摘要我批判地检查了Jan Deckers在动物（de）解放中的位置，在那里他捍卫了两个主要观点。第一个是“合格的道德素食主义”：大多数人都有责任戒除消费的动物产品，即使有这样的情况也是合理的。作者一方面争辩，从一个泛派遣的人视图，它将感知到所有基本实体及其化合物属性。因此，所有生物（如动物和植物）都有积极和负面经历的能力。另一方面，他开发了一个后果主义的观点，为促进自己的“整体健康”来指定道德代理人。这部分是由代理人的“道德健康”构成，即她以道德辩护的方式行事。在Deckers的观点上，道德代理人必须关心所有生物实体的健康，对他们更密切相关的生物的利益提供更大的体重，并尊重自然的完整性。含有动物产品的饮食具有非常高的负面健康影响，因为它们如何影响环境，人类粮食安全和非人类动物的福祉。此外，尽管植物是感知，但它们可能比动物更少，而且它们的兴趣必须减轻重量。因此，大多数人应该转向素食饮食。 Deckers的第二个提案是，应制定对动物产品消费的合格禁令。在丢弃其他替代策略后，Deckers捍卫其可行性依赖于通过一系列调查获得的数据。虽然论证部分成功地制定了一个连贯的账户，但是，我得出结论，他的本体论和规范框架仍然欠发达，他对生物相关性的吸引力令人难以置信的影响，以及他捍卫他的政治地位的方法是有问题的。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号