排序方式: 共有7条查询结果,搜索用时 15 毫秒
1
1.
Gaverick?Matheny Kai?M.?A.?ChanEmail author 《Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics》2005,18(6):579-594
Few moral arguments have been made against vegetarian diets. One exception is the “Logic of the Larder:” We do animals a favor
by purchasing their meat, eggs, and milk, for if we did not purchase these products, fewer animals would exist. This argument
fails because many farm animals have lives that are probably not worth living, while others prevent a significant number of
wild animals from existing. Even if this were not so, the purchase of animal products uses resources that could otherwise
be used to bring a much greater number of animals into existence. 相似文献
2.
David Sztybel 《Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics》2001,14(3):259-273
Even if animal liberation were to be adopted, would rights for animals be redundant – or even deleterious? Such an objection, most prominently voiced by L. W. Sumner and Paul W. Taylor, is misguided, risks an anthropocentric and anthropomorphic conception of autonomy and freedom, overly agent-centered rights conceptions, and an overlooking of the likely harmful consequences of positing rights for humans but not for nonhuman animals. The objection in question also stems from an overly pessimistic construal of autonomy-infringements thought to result from extending rights to animals, and also, of confusions that supposedly may ensue from ascribing animal rights. Whether or not a case for animal liberation and/or animal rights can cogently be made, the redundancy-or-worse objection to animal rights need pose no barrier. 相似文献
3.
Evelyn Pluhar 《Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics》1990,3(2):147-171
The ethical theory underlying much of our treatment of animals in agriculture and research is the moral agency view. It is assumed that only moral agents, or persons, are worthy of maximal moral significance, and that farm and laboratory animals are not moral agents. However, this view also excludes human non-persons from the moral community. Utilitarianism, which bids us maximize the amount of good (utility) in the world, is an alternative ethical theory. Although it has many merits, including impartiality and the extension of moral concern to all sentient beings, it also appears to have many morally unacceptable implications. In particular, it appears to sanction the killing of innocents when utility would be maximized, including cases in which we would deliberately kill and replace a being, as we typically do to animals on farms and in laboratories. I consider a number of ingenious recent attempts by utilitarians to defeat the killing and replaceability arguments, including the attempt to make a place for genuine moral rights within a utilitarian framework. I conclude that utilitarians cannot escape the killing and replaceability objections. Those who reject the restrictive moral agency view and find they cannot accept utilitarianism's unsavory implications must look to a different ethical theory to guide their treatment of humans and non-humans. 相似文献
4.
王宗廷 《中国人口.资源与环境》2002,(6)
顺利实现可持续发展需要社会文化的支持。其中功利主义与可持续发展关系十分密切 ,我们必须坚持合理的功利主义 ,妥善处理人与自然、当代人与后代人的关系 相似文献
5.
Keith Tester 《Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics》1989,2(3):241-251
This article discusses the militant political opposition to the agricultural use of animals. It relates specifically to developments in the United Kingdom. It surveys two of the main ideas that advocate a transformation of the treatment of animals and shows how they have (without their authors' intention) led to acts like arson, burglary, and the destruction of property. The analysis uses some evidence from literature produced by the militant groups that has never before been presented to an academic audience. 相似文献
6.
Utilitarian ethics provides a model for evaluating moral responsibility in agricultural research decisions according to the balance of costs and benefits accruing to the public at large. Given the traditions and special requirements of agricultural research planning, utilitarian theory is well adapted to serve as a starting point for evaluating these decisions, but utilitarianism has defects that are well documented in the philosophical literature. Criticisms of research decisions in agricultural mechanization and biotechnology correspond to documented defects in utilitarian theory. Research administrators can expect that application of a utilitarian standard ignoring these deficiencies will become the occasion for predictable attacks by critics. Administrators who are sensitive to the strengths and weaknesses of utilitarian ethics are equipped to make a better allocation of research effort. 相似文献
7.
Jeffrey Burkhardt 《Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics》2001,14(2):135-145
In the face of criticisms about the current generationof agricultural biotechnology products, some proponents ofagricultural biotechnology offer a ``future benefitsargument'(FBA), which is a utilitarian ethical argument thatattempts to justify continued R&D. This paper analyzes severallogical implications of the FBA. Among these are that acceptanceof the FBA implies (1) acceptance of a precautionary approach torisk, (2) the need for a more proportional and equitabledistribution of the benefits of agricultural biotechnology, andmost important, (3) the need to reorient and restructurebiotechnology R&D institutions (and the agriculturalbiotechnology community's values and attitudes) so that futurebenefits are indeed achieved through agricultural biotechnology. 相似文献
1