Machine generated contents note: Six. It's OK to Eat Meat. In Search of Good Arguments -- Enjoyable? -- Healthy? -- Natural? -- Endorsed by God? -- The Other Side of the Coin -- Plan for the Book -- Two. Conscientious Omnivorism -- Overlapping Characteristics -- Debunking Respect? -- The Need for an Explanation -- The Charge of Discrimination -- Eating Our Fellow Creatures -- Early Demises -- The Possibility of "Conscientious Omnivorism" -- Three. The Other 99% -- Chicken -- Pork -- Beef -- What Should Be Our Standards? -- Industry Standards -- Independent Certifications -- The Problems Are Real -- Four. Making a Difference -- What Happens When a Person Eats Meat? -- How Inefficacy Is Possible -- Transmission Up the Supply Chain -- Responsiveness to Changes -- Participating in a Movement -- Why Choose? -- Bang for the Buck -- A Misguided Argumentative Strategy -- What If Everyone Did That? Five -- The Universalization Test -- A World Full of Meat-Eaters -- A World Full of Vegetarians -- Ideal Outcomes vs. Strategic Decisions -- Chasing Stags -- Raising the Stakes -- Turning the Tide -- Holding Serve -- Six. Hanging Our Hats -- Taking a Stand -- Consumption as Endorsement -- The Puzzle of Complicity -- How to Respond? -- What We Celebrate -- Better Together? -- It's OK to Eat Meat.
Summary:
Vegetarians have argued at great length that meat-eating is wrong. Even so, the vast majority of people continue to eat meat, and even most vegetarians eventually give up on their diets. Does this prove these people must be morally corrupt? In Why It's OK to Eat Meat, Dan C. Shahar argues the answer is no: it's entirely possible to be an ethical person while continuing to eat meat--and not just the "fancy" offerings from the farmers' market but also the regular meat we find at most supermarkets and restaurants. Shahar's examination forcefully echoes vegetarians' concerns about the meat industry's impacts on animals, workers, the environment, and public health. However, he shows that the most influential ethical arguments for avoiding meat on the basis of these considerations are ultimately unpersuasive. Instead of insisting we all become vegetarians, Shahar argues each of us has broad latitude to choose which of the world's problems to tackle, in what ways, and to what extents, and hence people can decline to take up this particular form of activism without doing anything wrong. Key Features First book-length defense of meat-eating written for a popular audience Punchy, accessible introduction to the multifaceted debate over the ethics of eating meat Includes pioneering new examinations of humane labeling practices Shows why appeals to universalized patterns of behavior can't vindicate vegetarians' claims that there's a duty to avoid meat Develops a novel theory of ethical activism with potential applications to a wide range of other issues
This resource is supported by the Institute of Museum and Library Services under the provisions of the Library Services and Technology Act as administered by State Library of Iowa.