PhilArchive
open access
A Good Deal? Thoughts on Zangwill’s argument for carnivorism
Mark Zangwill [2021, 2022] argues that we have a moral duty to eat meat where we've been in a mutually beneficial relation with the kind of animal eaten. While there may be, in principle, an ethically defensible mutualism between humans and the animals we feed on, I argue that our actual relation with even animals outside the factory farm seems exploitive, not mutualist. Castration (usually sans analgesic), maternal deprivation, and genetic contortion (if only the slow contortion of selective breeding) impose severe harms on animals. Moreover, any "deal" the farmed animals enter into is signed under duress: is signed during the Anthropocene, when animals of no use to us are being eliminated from Earth.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Against Flesh: Why We Should Eschew (Not Chew) Lab-Grown and ‘Happy’ Meat#72564
- Just Fodder: The Ethics of Feeding Animals; By Josh Milburn#725325
- Phenomenology and normativity: a Merleau-Pontian approach to animal ethics#727899
- Different religions, different animal ethics?#708018
- An Alternative to Moral Vegetarianism for Meat-Eaters: Moral Cannibalism#83875
Record · ID 699534
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive