Advertisement

Journal of agricultural ethics

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 172–186 | Cite as

So animal a human ..., or the moral relevance of being an omnivore

  • Kathryn Paxton George
Article

Abstract

It is argued that the question of whether or not one is required to be or become a strict vegetarian depends, not upon a rule or ideal that endorses vegetarianism on moral grounds, but rather upon whether one's own physical, biological nature is adapted to maintaining health and well-being on a vegetarian diet. Even if we accept the view that animals have rights, we still have no duty to make ourselves substantially worse off for the sake of other rights-holders. Moreover, duties to others, such as fetuses and infants, may require one to consume meat or animal products. Seven classes of individuals who are not required to be or become vegetarians are identified and their examption is related to nutritional facts; these classes comprise most of the earth's population. The rule of vegetarianism defines a special or provisional duty rather than any general or universal rule, since its observance it based upon the biological capacities of individual humans whose genetic constitution and environment makes them suitably herbivorous. It is also argued that generalizing the vegetarian ideal as a social goal for all would be wrongful because it fails to consider the individual nutritional needs of humans at various stages of life, according to biological differences between the sexes, and because it would have the eugenic effect of limiting the adaptability of the human species. The appeal to the natural interests of omnivores will not justify any claim that humans may eat amounts of meat or animal products in excess of a reasonable safety margin since animals have rights-claims against us.

Keywords

ethics rights animals vegetarianism omnivore genetic diversity eugenics naturalism human nature cannibalism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alexander, Richard D. 1987.The Biology of Moral Systems. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, L.H. 1986.Nutrition Today, 21: 6.Google Scholar
  3. Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. 1987.Journal of the American Medical Association, 257: 1929.Google Scholar
  4. Dickinson, R.E. 1986. Impact of Human Activities on Climate — A Framework. InSustainable Development of the Biosphere, edited by W.C. Clark and R.E. Munn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.Google Scholar
  5. Dwyer, J.T., R. Palombo, H. Thorne, I. Valadian, and R.B. Reed. 1978.Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 72: 264.Google Scholar
  6. FDA. 1982.FDA Drug Bulletin, 12: 5.Google Scholar
  7. Festa, M.D., H.L. Anderson, R.P. Dowdy, and M.R. Ellersieck. 1985.American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 41: 285.Google Scholar
  8. Hamilton, Eva May Nunnelley, Eleanor Noss Whitney, and Frances Sienkiewicz Sizer. 1984. Controversy: World Hunger, chap. 6. InNutrition: Concepts and Controversies, 3rd ed. St. Paul: West Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  9. Hartz, S.C. and J. Blumberg. 1986.Clinical Nutrition, 5: 130.Google Scholar
  10. Herbert, V. and G. Tisman. 1973. InBiology and Brain Dysfunction, edited by G. Gaull, vol. 1. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  11. Herbert, Victor. 1984. Vitamin B-12. InNutrition Reviews' Present Knowledge in Nutrition, 5th ed. Washington, DC: The Nutrition Foundation, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Hurnik, J.F. 1979/80. Animal Welfare and Modern Agriculture,Animal Regulation Studies, 2: 145–154.Google Scholar
  13. Lappé, Frances Moore. 1975.Diet for a Small Plant. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  14. Mayer, J. 1973.Journal of Family Health, 5: 32.Google Scholar
  15. McBean, Lois D., M.S., R.D., ed. 1987. Dairy Council Digest, 58(2): 9.Google Scholar
  16. McDonald, J.T. 1986.Clinical Nutrition, 5:27.Google Scholar
  17. Myers, Norman. 1985. The End of the Lines,Natural History, 94: 2, February.Google Scholar
  18. Pond, Wilson G., Robert A. Merkel, Lon D. McGilliard, and V. James Rhodes, eds. 1980.Animal Agriculture: Research to Meet Human Needs in the 21st Century, Executive Summary. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  19. Regan, Tom. 1983.The Case for Animal Rights. Berkeley: The University of California Press.Google Scholar
  20. Rollin, Bernard. 1981.Animal Rights and Human Morality. Buffalo: Prometheus.Google Scholar
  21. Ruse, Michael. 1986.Taking Darwin Seriously: A Naturalistic Approach to Philosophy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Sapontzis, Stephen. 1987.Morals, Reason, and Animals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Shull, M.W., R.B. Reed, I. Valadian, R. Palombo, H. Thorne, and J.T. Dwyer. 1977.Pediatrics, 60:410.Google Scholar
  24. Singer, Peter. 1979. Killing Animals and Killing Humans,Inquiry, 22: 145–156.Google Scholar
  25. Solomons, N.W. 1986.Nutrition, 5: 167.Google Scholar
  26. Tangley, Laura. 1988. Studying (and Saving) the Tropics,Bioscience, 38(6): 375.Google Scholar
  27. Whitney, Eleanor Noss and Eva May Nunnelley Hamilton. 1987.Understanding Nutrition, 4th ed. St. Paul: West Publishing Co.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Journal of Agricultural Ethics 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathryn Paxton George
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of IdahoMoscow

Personalised recommendations