On the Predation Argument
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14394/17Keywords:
animal ethics, predation argument, moral considerability, moral agencyAbstract
In this paper, I will give a philosophical analysis and defence of the seemingly naive Predation Argument (PA) that since some non-human animals eat other animals, there can be nothing morally wrong with eating meat. I offer a non-trivial formulation of PA based on premises with which a morally-motivated vegan (against whom PA is aimed) would most likely agree and defend these premises against possible objections. Not only does PA turn out to be a valid argument, but from the analysis of it we learn two things. First, we learn that the distinction between moral subjects and moral agents is not as strict as it is usually assumed. Second, we learn that the morality of eating animals does not come down to the morality
of killing them.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Works published in ETYKA are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (CC BY 4.0), which entails acknowledgement of authorship. Under this licence, Authors keep their copyrights and agree that their works can be used again legally for any purpose, including commercial ones, without the need to obtain previous consent of the Author or publisher. The articles can be downloaded, printed, copied and disseminated; under the condition that the authorship is indicated accordingly, together with the place of original publication. The Authors preserve their copyrights to the above-mentioned works without any limitation whatsoever.