Abstract
Bioeconomy is hailed as holding great potential for innovative and effective solutions for global problems regarding sustainability, environmental conservation, and food security. It has, however, also been criticised in view of its conceptual preconditions, unreflective use of technological fixes, and potentially adverse outcomes. Food ethics can provide a differentiated assessment of strategies and technologies applied in bioeconomy by means of scrutinising respective current theoretical and practical issues, for instance, those involving novel food technologies. The present article will (1) draw a rough sketch of food ethics in terms of a comprehensive theory of the good life, (2) analyse food as a moral problem, and (3) discuss some arguments concerning a paradigmatic example of technical solutions for moral problems in the context of bioeconomy, namely in vitro meat.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Cf. Gottwald and Krätzer (2014).
- 2.
Ibid., pp. 8 f., ‘reevaluation of all sentient life as a commodity of ‘biomass’, ‘the logical last step on a disastrous way regarded by adherents of bioeconomy as salvation from the problems that have for the most part been generated by that very orientation towards the goal of short-term yield’ (own translation).
- 3.
Ibid., p. 10, ‘unreflective use of technologies with hardly any controllable consequences’ (own translation).
- 4.
Cf. Morozov (2013).
- 5.
Gottwald and Krätzer (2014), p. 160, “the principles of precaution, responsibility, justice between generations, and biodiversity” (own translation).
- 6.
Cf. Mattick (2018).
- 7.
The interrelation between (affordable) diet and socio-economic status has been of high importance throughout human history; cf. Hirschfelder (2005).
- 8.
Matthias Kaiser and Anne Algers identify ‘five grand challenges connected to food’: ‘population growth’, ‘climate change’, ‘access to natural resources’, ‘global health issues’, and ‘the global markets’ (Kaiser & Algers, 2016, p. 3).
- 9.
Adam Shriver notes that ‘[a]mong the public, and especially younger generations, food has become substantially more political than in past decades’ (Shriver, 2020, p. 41).
- 10.
Mickey Gjerris assumes that reluctance to question our lifestyles and moral self-images leads to ‘willed blindness’, which, in turn, keeps us from realising that we ‘already know that we are on thin ice, morally speaking’ (Gjerris, 2015, p. 527).
- 11.
Shriver takes this liberal stance to be a ‘myth’ and states that ‘the choices we make when purchasing food have many effects on others, and can no longer [be] seen purely as a ‘personal choice’ (Shriver, 2020, p. 41).
- 12.
Paul B. Thompson, who is especially referring to the North American context, points out that there are two versions of ‘food ethics’: a philosophical one and ‘an international social movement aimed at reforming the global food system’ (Thompson, 2016, p. 61). According to his estimation, both are concerned with ‘the overarching goal set’ of ‘right conduct, social justice and sustainability’ (ibid., p. 62). However, the philosophical discipline of food ethics should not be conflated with the social-political movement because ‘[p]hilosophers are, of course, less confident that we know what right conduct, social justice and sustainability mean’, whereas the ‘popular conception of food ethics tends to presume that the overarching goal set is well-enough articulated to assess alternative policies and decision options’ (ibid., p. 62) while ‘there is little evidence that the practitioners of food ethics in the popular sense regard reflective and deliberative inquiry into philosophical matters to be a particularly worthwhile activity’ (ibid., p. 69).
- 13.
Cf. e.g., Lemke (2007), Mohrs (2009, 2013), Dell’Agli (2009a), Gottwald and Boergen (2013), and Voget-Kleschin et al. (2014). See also the online journal Epikur. Journal für Gastrosophie, which was initiated in 2009: https://www.epikur-journal.at/ [25.03.2020]. The international journal Food Ethics was established in 2016. Further international contributions to food ethics can be found in, e.g., Mepham (1996), Telfer (1996), Singer and Mason (2007), Gottwald et al. (2010), Pojman and Pojman (2011), Kaplan (2012a), Sandler (2015), Thompson (2015), and Barnill et al. (2018).
- 14.
Cf. Hoesch et al. (2013).
- 15.
- 16.
Cf. Misselhorn (2018).
- 17.
Cf. Bauberger et al. (2021).
- 18.
Cf. Loh (2019).
- 19.
Cf. Kaplan (2012b), pp. 1 f.
- 20.
A highly esteemed colleague of mine once stated quite distinctly: ‘The professional philosopher reasons about reason. The hobby philosopher can reason about eating’.
- 21.
Cf. Dieterle (2020).
- 22.
Kaplan (2012b), p. 2.
- 23.
Cf. ibid., pp. 3–18.
- 24.
Ibid., p. 2.
- 25.
- 26.
Kaplan (2012a), p. 1.
- 27.
Hub Zwart, however, states that ‘although the fact of this particular branch of ethics receiving a new name (‘food ethics’) rightly stresses its discontinuity with the past, some legacies and points of continuity can be indicated as well’ (Zwart, 2000, p. 114).
- 28.
Epikur (1988), p. 94, “the beginning and root of all good is the pleasure of the stomach” (own translation).
- 29.
One reason for the continuing misestimation of hedonism appears to rest upon a misunderstanding of the very concept (cf. Horn, 2014, pp. 95 ff.). Hedonism—in classical terms—does not recommend debauchery and exuberance. Quite contrarily, hedonists like Epicurus have always advocated moderate pleasures and temperance. Another reason for the misestimation might ironically be based on an attempt to counter the allegation. In his famous defence of utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill hastened to declare that there are higher and lower pleasures and that it is ‘better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied’ (Mill, 1957, p. 12). Steve Sapontzis’s comment on this manoeuvre is that ‘Mill’s ‘incalculably higher qualities’ of pleasure are more successful at saving utilitarianism’s dignity than its principle’ (Sapontzis, 2014, p. 6).
- 30.
Cf. Mohrs (2003).
- 31.
- 32.
Cf. Gjerris (2015), p. 528: ‘What if acknowledging what we know about the unsustainability of our current life-style would enable us to see new opportunities. What if changing the way we live today turns out not to be a sacrifice of our own interests, but a way of discovering new life paths that could be described as ‘good lives’?’ (Emphasis added).
- 33.
- 34.
Cf. Horn (2014).
- 35.
Cf. Kaiser and Algers (2016), p. 6.
- 36.
Cf. Young (2011).
- 37.
- 38.
Cf. Kühler and Nossek (2014).
- 39.
- 40.
- 41.
- 42.
Cf. Roser and Seidel (2015).
- 43.
Cf. Holland (2015).
- 44.
- 45.
Cf. Thompson and Hannah (2008).
- 46.
- 47.
- 48.
- 49.
- 50.
- 51.
- 52.
- 53.
Cf. Dell’Agli (2009b).
- 54.
Cf. Reitmeier (2013).
- 55.
- 56.
- 57.
Cf. Ammann et al. (2011).
- 58.
- 59.
Thompson (2016), p. 73.
- 60.
Gjerris (2015).
- 61.
Cf. Bayertz (2006).
- 62.
Cf. Ach and Pollmann (2017), pp. 39 f.
- 63.
Cf. ibid., p. 40.
- 64.
Cf. ibid.
- 65.
To state the question differently: How can Shriver (2020) be shown to be right in stating that eating is not a matter of personal choice in liberal terms (any more)?
- 66.
Cf. Ach and Pollmann (2017), p. 42.
- 67.
Only under the assumption of morally neutral situations, decisions, and actions as well as other normative reasons rather than moral ones (e.g., prudential, legal, or religious reasons) does the question of moral overridingness actually make sense; cf. the debate in Hoffmann et al. (2017).
- 68.
Cf. ibid., 42 f. The nutritional problem certainly can be conceptualised as a moral problem if one assumes that one has a duty to oneself to care for one’s own health or that an individual’s healthy diet is a matter of responsibility towards public health. This conceptualisation depends on both the underlying normative ethical account and the respective concept of health.
- 69.
Cf. ibid., 44 f. From a strict Kantian perspective, for example, real moral dilemmas cannot exist because proper application of the categorical imperative precludes collisions of duties.
- 70.
Cf. ibid., p. 43.
- 71.
Ibid., p. 39, “problem-problem” (own translation).
- 72.
Cf. ibid., 46 ff.
- 73.
- 74.
Cf. ibid., p. 53.
- 75.
Cf. ibid., p. 55 ff.
- 76.
The German expression in the contribution of Ach and Pollmann (2017), p. 58, is ‘Entmoralisierung’.
- 77.
Shriver (2020), p. 41.
- 78.
Cf. Post (2014), p. 1039.
- 79.
Cf. Rückert-John and Kröger (2019).
- 80.
Gjerris (2015), p. 523.
- 81.
Cf. Post (2012), p. 298.
- 82.
Cf. Post (2014), p. 1039: ‘Voluntarily abstaining from meat consumption is unlikely to contribute to reduction in meat demand, as the proportion of vegetarians in industrialized societies is low and has not increased over the last 35 years’. For a conclusive and witty advocacy of veganism, see Colb (2013).
- 83.
See also the contribution from Fiebelkorn et al. (2022) in this volume.
- 84.
Cf. Post (2014).
- 85.
Hocquette (2016), p. 169.
- 86.
Cf. Laestadius and Caldwell (2015), p. 2458.
- 87.
Cf. Mosa Meat.
- 88.
Cf. Hocquette (2016), p. 170.
- 89.
Cf. Böhm et al. (2017).
- 90.
Post (2012), p. 300.
- 91.
For a more comprehensive overview, see Beck (2019b).
- 92.
Cf. Morozov (2013).
- 93.
Ibid., p. 8.
- 94.
Cf. Hopkins and Dacey (2008).
- 95.
- 96.
Tuomisto and Teixeira de Mattos (2011), p. 6122.
- 97.
- 98.
Cf. Welin (2013), p. 34: ‘It is not more difficult to tissue engineer meat from a red-listed and rare animal than […] meat from a pig, a cow, or a chicken. To be able to eat, for example, sushi produced from an exotic source could be a way to sell more expensive products. It can be advertised as an ethical way of enjoying a new thrilling gastronomic experience, preferably served with a selection of exquisite wines in some fancy surroundings’.
- 99.
Cf. Tuomisto and Teixeira de Mattos (2011), p. 6122.
- 100.
- 101.
- 102.
- 103.
Cf. Sandin (2017).
- 104.
Cf. Levinstein and Sandberg (2015).
- 105.
- 106.
In an empirical study on the public acceptance of IVM, one participant claimed, for example, that the extinction of cattle would be ‘bad for cows’ (cf. Laestadius, 2015, p. 997).
- 107.
Schaefer and Savulescu (2014), p. 197.
- 108.
Cf. ibid.
- 109.
- 110.
Cf. Schaefer and Savulescu (2014), p. 194.
- 111.
Hopkins and Dacey (2008), p. 595.
- 112.
Ibid., p. 580.
- 113.
Piazza et al. (2015), p. 115.
- 114.
Cf. Joy (2010).
- 115.
Cf. Leitzmann (2018).
- 116.
With ‘we’, I refer to relatively wealthy persons in industrialised countries who can afford any dietetic choice and for whom abstaining from eating meat (and other animal products) poses no existential problem.
- 117.
Coeckelbergh (2015).
- 118.
References
Ach, J. S., & Borchers, D. (2018). Handbuch Tierethik. Grundlagen – Kontexte – Perspektiven. J.B. Metzler.
Ach, J. S., & Pollmann, A. (2017). Moralisch problematisch – Was aus einem problem ein moralisches problem macht. In M. Hoesch & S. Laukötter (Eds.), Natur und Erfahrung. Bausteine zu einer praktischen Philosophie der Gegenwart (pp. 39–60). Mentis.
Ammann, C., Bleisch, B., & Goppel, A. (2011). Müssen Ethiker moralisch sein? Essays über Philosophie und Lebensführung. Campus Verlag.
Anderson, E. C., & Barrett, L. F. (2016). Affective beliefs influence the experience of eating meat. Public Library of Science One, 11(8), e0160424.
Armstrong, B., Meskin, A., & Blundell-Birtill, P. (2019). Delicious but immoral? Ethical information influences consumer expectations and experience of food. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 843.
Bauberger, S., Beck, B., Burchardt, A., & Remmers, P. (2021). Ethische Fragen der Künstlichen Intelligenz. In G. Görz, U. Schmid, J. Schneeberger, & T. Braun (Eds.), Handbuch der Künstlichen Intelligenz (6th ed., pp. 907–934). De Gruyter.
Barnill, A., Budolfson, M., & Doggett, T. (2018). The oxford handbook of food ethics. Oxford University Press.
Bartkowski, B., & Baum, C. M. (2019). Dealing with rejection: An application of the exit–voice framework to genome-edited food. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 7, 57.
Bayertz, K. (1995). Verantwortung. Prinzip oder problem? Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Bayertz, K. (2006). Warum überhaupt moralisch sein? C.H. Beck.
Bayertz, K. (2011). Was ist angewandte Ethik? In J. S. Ach, K. Bayertz, & L. Siep (Eds.), Grundkurs Ethik. Band I: Grundlagen (2nd ed., pp. 165–179). Mentis.
Bayertz, K. (2013). Empirische Antworten auf philosophische Fragen? Zum Verhältnis von philosophischer Ethik und empirischer Glücksforschung. In M. Hoesch, S. Muders, & M. Rüther (Eds.), Glück – Werte – Sinn. Metaethische, ethische und theologische Zugänge zur Frage nach dem guten Leben (pp. 35–47). De Gruyter.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Frey, R. G. (2011). The Oxford handbook of animal ethics. Oxford University Press.
Beck, B. (2015). Conceptual and practical problems of moral enhancement. Bioethics, 29(4), 233–240.
Beck, B. (2018). Essen und Verantwortung. Der komplizierte Ausgang des Konsumenten aus der gastrosophischen Unmündigkeit. In A. Gelfert & T. Gil (Eds.), Philosophische Hefte (Vol. 5). Logos Verlag.
Beck, B. (2019a). Bioethik aus Sicht einer Ethikerin. In J. Kurreck & B. Beck (Eds.), Kursbuch Bioethik (pp. 27–38). Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin.
Beck, B. (2019b). Ethische Argumente pro und contra in-vitro-Fleisch. In J. Rückert-John & M. Kröger (Eds.), Fleisch. Vom Wohlstandssymbol zur Gefahr für die Zukunft (pp. 295–321). Nomos.
Benz-Schwarzburg, J. (2012). Verwandte im Geiste – Fremde im Recht. Sozio-kognitive Fähigkeiten bei Tieren und ihre Relevanz für Tierethik und Tierschutz. Harald Fischer Verlag.
Birnbacher, D. (1988). Verantwortung für zukünftige Generationen. Reclam.
Bolaños, A., & Schäffl, I. (2019). Moderne Lebensmittelproduktion. Zelluläre Landwirtschaft/Invitro-Fleisch. In J. Kurreck & B. Beck (Eds.), Kursbuch Bioethik (pp. 177–187). Universitätsverlag der TU Berlin.
Böhm, I., Ferrari, A., & Woll, S. (2017). In-vitro-Fleisch. Eine technische Vision zur Lösung der Probleme der heutigen Fleischproduktion und des Fleischkonsums? Retrieved April, 18, 2020, from, http://www.itas.kit.edu/pub/v/2017/boua17b.pdf
Bray, J., Johns, N., & Kilburn, D. (2011). An exploratory study into the factors impeding ethical consumption. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 597–608.
Chappell, T. (2009). The problem of moral demandingness. New philosophical essays. Palgrave Macmillan.
Coeckelbergh, M. (2015). Environmental skill. Motivation, knowledge, and the possibility of a non-romantic environmental ethics. Routledge.
Cohen, M. J. (2019). Let them eat promises: Global policy incoherence, unmet pledges, and misplaced priorities undercut progress on SDG 2. Food Ethics, 4, 175–187.
Colb, S. F. (2013). Mind if i order the cheese burger? And other questions people ask vegans. Lantern Books.
Dell’Agli, D. (2009a). Essen als ob nicht. Gastrosophische Modelle. Suhrkamp.
Dell’Agli, D. (2009b). Alles Käse? Eh Wurscht! Zur gastrosophischen Idiomatik des Deutschen. In Id (Ed.), Essen als ob nicht. Gastrosophische Modelle. : Suhrkamp (pp. 101–151).
Diamond, C. (2012). Fleisch essen und Menschen essen. In Id (Ed.), Menschen, Tiere und Begriffe. Aufsätze zur Moralphilosophie. : Suhrkamp (pp. 83–106).
Dieterle, J. M. (2020). Shifting the focus: Food choice, paternalism, and state regulation. Food Ethics, 5, 2.
Dilworth, T., & McGregor, A. (2015). Moral steaks? Ethical discourses of in vitro meat in academia and Australia. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28, 85–107.
Dürnberger, C. (2019). Normative concepts of nature in the GMO protest. A qualitative content analysis of position papers criticizing green genetic engineering in Germany. Food Ethics, 3, 49–66.
Düwell, M., Hübenthal, C., & Werner, M. H. (2011). Handbuch Ethik (3rd ed.). J.B. Metzler.
Epikur (1988). Philosophie der Freude. Briefe. Hauptlehrsätze. Spruchsammlung. Fragmente. Translated and equipped with an epilogueby P. M. Laskowsky. : Insel Verlag.
Fiebelkorn, F., Dupont, J., & Lammers P. (2022). Acceptance of insects and in vitro meat as a sustainable meat substitute in germany: in search of the decisive nutritional-psychological factors. In D. Lanzerath, U. Schurr, C. Pinsdorf, & M. Stake (Eds.), Bioeconomy and sustainability. Scientific, socio-economic and ethical dimensions (pp. 77–92). Springer.
Fischer, B. (2016). Bugging the strict vegan. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 29, 255–263.
Forstmann, M., Burgmer, P., & Mussweiler, T. (2012). “The mind is willing, but the flesh is weak”: The effects of mind-body dualism on health behavior. Psychological Science, 23(10), 1239–1245.
Francione, G. L. (2008). Animals as persons: Essays on the abolition of animal exploitation. Columbia University Press.
Giubilini, A., & Savulescu, J. (2018). The artificial moral advisor. The “ideal observer” meets artificial intelligence. Philosophy & Technology, 31, 169–188.
Gjerris, M. (2015). Willed blindness: A discussion of our moral shortcomings in relation to animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28, 517–532.
Gottwald, F.-T., & Boergen, I. (2013). Essen & Moral. Beiträge zur Ethik der Ernährung. Metropolis.
Gottwald, F.-T., Ingensiep, H. W., & Meinhardt, M. (2010). Food ethics. Springer.
Gottwald, F.-T., & Krätzer, A. (2014). Irrweg Bioökonomie. Kritik an einem totalitären Ansatz. Suhrkamp.
Grey, J., & Garrett, A. (2018). You are what you eat, but should you eat what you are? Modern philosophical dietetics. In A. Barnhill, M. Budolfson, & T. Doggett (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of food ethics (pp. 773–794). Oxford University Press.
Hahn, H. (2017). Kollektivierungspflichten und ethischer Konsum. Zeitschrift für Praktische Philosophie, 4(1), 183–210.
Halbig, C. (2013). Tugend und Glück. In M. Hoesch, S. Muders, & M. Rüther (Eds.), Glück – Werte – Sinn. Metaethische, ethische und theologische Zugänge zur Frage nach dem guten Leben (pp. 143–173). De Gruyter.
Heidbrink, L. (2003). Kritik der Verantwortung. Zu den Grenzen verantwortlichen Handelns in komplexen Kontexten. Velbrück Wissenschaft.
Heidbrink, L. (2007). Handeln in der Ungewissheit. Paradoxien der Verantwortung. Kulturverlag Kadmos.
Heidbrink, L., Langbehn, C., & Loh, J. (2017). Handbuch Verantwortung. Springer VS.
Heidbrink, L., Schmidt, I., & Ahaus, B. (2011). Die Verantwortung des Konsumenten. Über das Verhältnis von Markt, Moral und Konsum. Campus Verlag.
Hirschfelder, G. (2005). Europäische Esskultur. Geschichte der Ernährung von der Steinzeit bis heute. Campus Verlag.
Hocquette, J.-F. (2016). Is in vitro meat the solution for the future? Meat Science, 120, 167–176.
Hoesch, M., Muders, S., & Rüther, M. (2013). Glück – Werte – Sinn. In Metaethische, ethische und theologische Zugänge zur Frage nach dem guten Leben. De Gruyter.
Hoffmann, M., Schmücker, R., & Wittwer, H. (2017). Vorrang der Moral? Eine metaethische Kontroverse. Klostermann.
Holland, S. (2015). Public health ethics (2nd ed.). Polity.
Hölker, S., von Meyer-Höfer, M., & Spiller, A. (2019). Inclusion of animal ethics into the consumer value-attitude system using the example of game meat consumption. Food Ethics, 3, 53–75.
Hopkins, P. D. (2015). Cultured meat in Western media: The disproportionate coverage of vegetarian reactions, demographic realities, and implications for cultured meat marketing. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(2), 264–272.
Hopkins, P. D., & Dacey, A. (2008). Vegetarian meat. Could technology save animals and satisfy meat eaters? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21, 579–596.
Horn, C. (2014). Antike Lebenskunst. Glück und Moral von Sokrates bis zu den Neuplatonikern (3rd ed.). C.H.Beck.
Ingensiep, H. W. (2007). “Der Mensch ist, was er isst”. Natur und Kultur der Ernährung aus anthropologischer Sicht. Essener Unikate. Berichte aus Forschung und Lehre, 30, 52–59.
Joy, M. (2010). Why we love dogs, eat pigs and wear cows. An introduction to carnism. Conari Press.
Kaiser, M., & Algers, A. (2016). Food ethics: A wide field in need of dialogue. Food Ethics, 1, 1–7.
Kallhoff, A., Di Paola, M., & Schörgenhumer, M. (2018). Plant ethics. Concepts and applications. Routledge.
Kaplan, D. M. (2012a). The philosophy of food. University of California Press.
Kaplan, D. M. (2012b). Introduction. In The philosophy of food (pp. 1–23). University of California Press.
Kühler, M., & Nossek, A. (2014). Paternalismus und Konsequentialismus. Mentis.
Laestadius, L. I. (2015). Public perceptions of the ethics of in-vitro meat: Determining an appropriate course of action. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 28, 991–1009.
Laestadius, L. I., & Caldwell, M. A. (2015). Is the future of meat palatable? Perceptions of in vitro meat as evidenced by online news comments. Public Health Nutrition, 18(13), 2457–2467.
Lagerlund, H. (2018). Food ethics in the middle ages. In A. Barnhill, M. Budolfson, & T. Doggett (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of food ethics (pp. 759–772). Oxford University Press.
Lamla, J. (2013). Verbraucherdemokratie. Politische Soziologie der Konsumgesellschaft. Suhrkamp.
Lammers, P., Ullmann, L. M., & Fiebelkorn, F. (2019). Acceptance of insects as food in Germany: Is it about sensation seeking, sustainability consciousness, or food disgust? Food Quality and Preference, 77, 78–88.
Leitzmann, C. (2018). Veganismus. Grundlagen, Vorteile, Risiken. C.H. Beck.
Lemke, H. (2007). Ethik des Essens. Eine Einführung in die Gastrosophie. Akademie Verlag.
Lemke, H. (2012). Politik des Essens. In Wovon die welt von morgen lebt. Transcript.
Levinstein, B., & Sandberg, A. (2015). The moral limitations of in vitro meat. Retrieved April 18, 2020, from, http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/09/the-moral-limitations-of-in-vitro-meat/
Loh, J. (2019). Roboterethik. Eine Einführung. Suhrkamp.
Mackie, J. L. (1977). Ethics: Inventing right and wrong. Penguin Books.
Marcu, A., Gaspar, R., Rutsaert, P., Seibt, B., Fletcher, D., Verbeke, W., & Barnett, J. (2015). Analogies, metaphors, and wondering about the future: Lay sense-making around synthetic meat. Public Understanding of Science, 24(5), 547–562.
Mattick, C. S. (2018). Cellular agriculture: The coming revolution in food production. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 74(1), 32–35.
Mattick, C. S., Landis, A. E., Allenby, B. R., & Genovese, N. J. (2015). Anticipatory life cycle analysis of in vitro biomass cultivation for cultured meat production in the United States. Environmental Science and Technology, 49, 11941–11949.
Mazar, N., & Zhong, C.-B. (2010). Do green products make us better people? Psychological Science, 21(4), 494–498.
McMullen, S., & Halteman, M. C. (2019). Against inefficacy objections: The real economic impact of individual consumer choices on animal agriculture. Food Ethics, 2, 93–110.
Mepham, B. (1996). Food ethics. Routledge.
Meyer, K. (2018). Was schulden wir künftigen Generationen? Herausforderung Zukunftsethik. Reclam.
Mill, J. S. (1957). Utilitarianism. Liberal Arts Press.
Misselhorn, C. (2018). Grundfragen der Maschinenethik (2nd revised ed.). Reclam.
Mohrs, T. (2003). Weltbürgerlicher Kommunitarismus. Zeitgeistkonträre Anregungen zu einer konkreten Utopie. Königshausen & Neumann.
Mohrs, T. (2009). Habe Mut, dich deines gastrosophischen Verstandes zu bedienen! Ein (kritischer) Blick auf das Postulat der gastrosophischen Mündigkeit. Epikur. Journal für Gastrosophie, http://www.epikur-journal.at [accessed: 25/03/2020].
Mohrs, T. (2013). Essen – Identität – Verantwortung. Konsumentenethische Reflexionen. In F.-T. Gottwald & I. Boergen (Eds.), Essen & Moral. Beiträge zur Ethik der Ernährung (pp. 139–150). Metropolis.
Morozov, E. (2013). To save everything, click here: Technology, solutionism, and the urge to fix problems that don’t exist. Penguin Books.
Mosa Meat: frequently asked questions. Retrieved August 3, 2020, from, https://www.mosameat.com/faq.
Mulgan, T. (2011). Ethics for a broken world: Imagining philosophy after catastrophe. McGill-Queens University Press.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2019). Meat alternatives. Bioethics briefing note. Retrived March 28, 2020, from , https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/publications/meat-alternatives
Ott, K. (2014). Umweltethik zur Einführung (2nd extended ed.). Junius.
Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. Oxford University Press.
Perler, D., & Wild, M. (2005). Der Geist der Tiere. Philosophische Texte zu einer aktuellen Diskussion. Suhrkamp.
Persson, I., & Savulescu, J. (2012). Unfit for the future. The need for moral enhancement. Oxford University Press.
Piazza, J., Ruby, M. B., Loughnan, S., Luong, M., Kulik, J., Watkins, H. M., & Seigerman, M. (2015). Rationalizing meat consumption. The 4Ns. Appetite, 91, 114–128.
Pluhar, E. B. (2010). Meat and morality: Alternatives to factory farming. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 23, 455–468.
Pojman, P., & Pojman, L. P. (2011). Food ethics. Wadsworth Publishing.
Post, M. J. (2012). Cultured meat from stem cells: Challenges and prospects. Meat Science, 92(3), 297–301.
Post, M. J. (2014). Cultured beef: Medical technology to produce food. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 94(6), 1039–1041.
Pouteau, S. (2014). Beyond “second animals”: Making sense of plant ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 27, 1–25.
Raters, M.-L. (2017). Was geht uns das Elend der Welt an? Überlegungen zur Grenze zwischen Pflicht und Supererogation am Beispiel des Weltarmutsproblems. Zeitschrift für Praktische Philosophie, 4(2), 191–218.
Regan, T. (2004). The case for animal rights. University of California Press.
Reitmeier, S. (2013). Warum wir mögen, was wir essen. Eine Studie zur Sozialisation der Ernährung. transcript.
Roser, D., & Seidel, C. (2015). Ethik des Klimawandels. Eine Einführung (2nd extended ed.). Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Rückert-John, J., & Kröger, M. (2019). Fleisch. Vom Wohlstandssymbol zur Gefahr für die Zukunft. Nomos.
Sandin, P. (2017). How to label ‘natural’ foods: A matter of complexity. Food Ethics, 1, 97–107.
Sandler, R. L. (2015). Food ethics: The basics. Routledge.
Sapontzis, S. F. (2014). In Defense of the pig. Journal of Animal Ethics, 4(1), 5–17.
Schaefer, G. O., & Savulescu, J. (2014). The ethics of producing in vitro meat. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 31(2), 188–202.
Schmitz, F. (2014). Tierethik. Grundlagentexte. Suhrkamp.
Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice. Why more is less. Ecco.
Shockley, M., & Dossey, A. T. (2014). Insects for human consumption. In J. A. Morales-Ramos, M. G. Rojas, & D. I. Shapiro-Ilan (Eds.), Mass production of beneficial organisms. Invertebrates and entomopathogens (pp. 617–652). Elsevier.
Shriver, A. (2020). Prioritizing the protection of welfare in gene-edited livestock. Animal Frontiers, 10(1), 39–44.
Singer, P., & Mason, J. (2007). The ethics of what we eat. Why our food choices matter. Rodale Books.
Stoecker, R., Neuhäuser, C., & Raters, M.-L. (2011). Handbuch Angewandte Ethik. J.B. Metzler.
Telfer, E. (1996). Food for thought: Philosophy and food. Routledge.
Tiberius, V. (2008). The reflective life. Living wisely with our limits. Oxford University Press.
Tiberius, V. (2014). Moral psychology. A contemporary introduction. Routledge.
Thompson, P. B. (2015). From field to fork. Food ethics for everyone. Oxford University Press.
Thompson, P. B. (2016). The emergence of food ethics. Food Ethics, 1, 61–74.
Thompson, P. B., & Hannah, W. (2008). Food and agricultural biotechnology: A summary and analysis of ethical concerns. In U. Stahl, U. E. B. Donalies, & E. Nevoigt (Eds.), Food biotechnology (pp. 229–264).
Tuomisto, H. L., & Teixeira de Mattos, M. J. (2011). Environmental impacts of cultured meat production. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(14), 6117–6123.
Van Ackeren, M., & Kühler, M. (2016). The limits of moral obligation. Moral demandingness and ought implies can. Routledge.
Voget-Kleschin, L., Bossert, L., & Ott, K. (2014). Nachhaltige lebensstile: Welchen beitrag kann ein bewusster fleischkonsum zu mehr naturschutz, klimaschutz und gesundheit leisten? Metropolis.
Vogt, K. M. (2018). Who you are is what you eat: Food in ancient thought. In A. Barnhill, M. Budolfson, & T. Doggett (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of food ethics (pp. 741–758). Oxford University Press.
Waltner-Toews, D., & Houle, K. (2017). Biophilia on the dinner plate: A conversation about ethics and entomophagy. Food Ethics, 1, 157–171.
Welin, S. (2013). Introducing the new meat. Problems and prospects. Etikk i praksis. Nordic Journal of Applied Ethics, 7(1), 24–37.
Wessels, U. (2002). Die gute samariterin. Zur struktur der supererogation. De Gruyter.
Wild, M. (2008). Tierphilosophie zur einführung. Junius.
Young, I. M. (2011). Responsibility for justice. Oxford University Press.
Zwart, H. (2000). A short history of food ethics. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 12, 113–126.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Beck, B. (2022). Food as a Moral Problem. In: Lanzerath, D., Schurr, U., Pinsdorf, C., Stake, M. (eds) Bioeconomy and Sustainability. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87402-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87402-5_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-87401-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-87402-5
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)