In Defence of the Vegan Project

Deckers, Jan

doi:10.1007/s11673-013-9428-9

Cited by 13 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, as other aspects of the animal industry do not fare much better as far as their negative GHIs are concerned, it would seem to be appropriate to ban the consumption of animal products for all human beings who would fail to minimise negative GHIs by consuming such products. In earlier work, I referred to the ambition to create international and national laws to introduce such a qualified ban as 'the vegan project' (Deckers 2013b). Though it may be-in Caney (2008, 539)'s words-'unreasonably demanding' for human beings to avoid consuming animal products in some situations, in many situations it is not.…”

Section: The Vegan Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned?

Deckers

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Vegan Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned?

Deckers

2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Though the view that most humans should adopt veganism has been advanced before, the author argues for them in a novel way. Drawing upon some of his previous work, Deckers advances an axiology centred on the notion of “holistic health” and endorses a consequentialist theory that assigns moral agents the aim of promoting their holistic health in certain ways. Here, “holistic health” includes, besides health narrowly conceived and subjective well‐being, what Jan Deckers calls “moral health.” It consists in “cultivating the right virtues, values and attitudes without which it would not be possible to act morally.” This implies that “to fulfil their holistic health care duties” (p. 6), moral agents must take into account how a decision may affect the health (holistically conceived) of all biological organisms.…”

Section: Qualified Moral Veganismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Though the view that most humans should adopt veganism has been advanced before, the author argues for them in a novel way. Drawing upon some of his previous work, [2][3][4] Deckers advances an axiology centred on the notion of "holistic health" and endorses a consequentialist theory that assigns moral agents the aim of promoting their holistic health in certain ways. Here, "holistic health" includes, besides health narrowly conceived and subjective well-being, what Jan Deckers calls "moral health."…”

Section: Qualified Moral Veganismmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Paez

2017

Evaluation Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Here, I specifically mean those who share a goal of eliminating/grossly diminishing the use of NHAs for food. This might be called the 'vegan project'(Deckers 2013).3 Also variously known as cultured flesh/meat, test-tube flesh/meat, carniculture, and frankenmeat.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Chewing Over In Vitro Meat: Animal Ethics, Cannibalism and Social Progress

Milburn

2016

Res Publica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite its potential for radically reducing the harm inflicted on nonhuman animals in the pursuit of food, there are a number of objections grounded in animal ethics to the development of in vitro meat. In this paper, I defend the possibility against three such concerns. I suggest that worries about reinforcing ideas of flesh as food and worries about the use of nonhuman animals in the production of in vitro meat can be overcome through appropriate safeguards and a fuller understanding of the interests that nonhuman animals actually possess. Worries about the technology reifying speciesist hierarchies of value are more troublesome, however. In response to this final challenge, I suggest that we should be open not just to the production of in vitro nonhuman flesh, but also in vitro human flesh. This leads to a consideration of the ethics of cannibalism. The paper ultimately defends the position that cannibalism simpliciter is not morally problematic, though a great many practices typically associated with it are. The consumption of in vitro human flesh, however, is able to avoid these problematic practices, and so should be considered permissible. I conclude that animal ethicists and vegans should be willing to cautiously embrace the production of in vitro flesh.

show abstract

In Defence of the Vegan Project

Cited by 13 publications

References 21 publications

Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned?

Animal (De)liberation: Should the Consumption of Animal Products Be Banned?

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

Chewing Over In Vitro Meat: Animal Ethics, Cannibalism and Social Progress

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About