Should vegans have children? A response to Räsänen.

Theoretical medicine and bioethics Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-14 DOI:10.1007/s11017-024-09664-4
Louis Austin-Eames
{"title":"Should vegans have children? A response to Räsänen.","authors":"Louis Austin-Eames","doi":"10.1007/s11017-024-09664-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Joona Räsänen argues that vegans ought to be anti-natalists and therefore abstain from having children. More precisely, Räsänen claims that vegans who accept a utilitarian or rights-based argument for veganism, ought to, by parity of reasoning, accept an analogous argument for anti-natalism. In this paper, I argue that the reasons vegans have for refraining from purchasing animal products do not commit them to abstaining from having children. I provide novel arguments to the following conclusion: while there is good reason to believe that factory farming results in a net disutility and involves treating non-human animals as mere means, there is not good reason to believe that having children results in a net disutility or involves treating the children as mere means. Subsequently, I respond to what I take to be Räsänen's underlying reasoning-that vegans are committed to abstaining from other practices which cause unnecessary suffering. I respond by arguing that this is plausibly false as various practices which cause unnecessary suffering are likely permissible, whereas factory farming is not.</p>","PeriodicalId":94251,"journal":{"name":"Theoretical medicine and bioethics","volume":" ","pages":"303-319"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11255060/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoretical medicine and bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-024-09664-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Joona Räsänen argues that vegans ought to be anti-natalists and therefore abstain from having children. More precisely, Räsänen claims that vegans who accept a utilitarian or rights-based argument for veganism, ought to, by parity of reasoning, accept an analogous argument for anti-natalism. In this paper, I argue that the reasons vegans have for refraining from purchasing animal products do not commit them to abstaining from having children. I provide novel arguments to the following conclusion: while there is good reason to believe that factory farming results in a net disutility and involves treating non-human animals as mere means, there is not good reason to believe that having children results in a net disutility or involves treating the children as mere means. Subsequently, I respond to what I take to be Räsänen's underlying reasoning-that vegans are committed to abstaining from other practices which cause unnecessary suffering. I respond by arguing that this is plausibly false as various practices which cause unnecessary suffering are likely permissible, whereas factory farming is not.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
素食主义者应该生孩子吗?对莱萨宁的回应。
约娜-拉萨宁(Joona Räsänen)认为,素食主义者应该是反生育主义者,因此不应该生孩子。更确切地说,拉塞宁声称,接受功利主义或基于权利的素食主义论点的素食主义者,根据等价推理,也应该接受反生育主义的类似论点。在本文中,我认为素食者不购买动物产品的理由并不意味着他们要放弃生育。我为以下结论提供了新颖的论据:虽然有充分的理由相信工厂化养殖会带来净效用,并涉及将非人类动物视为单纯的手段,但没有充分的理由相信生孩子会带来净效用,或涉及将孩子视为单纯的手段。随后,我回应了我所认为的赖斯宁的基本推理--素食主义者致力于放弃其他会造成不必要痛苦的做法。我在回应时指出,这种说法似是而非,因为造成不必要痛苦的各种做法很可能是允许的,而工厂化养殖则不允许。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Reaffirming the irrationality of human confidence that an ageless existence would be better: A reply to García-Barranquero and Llorca Albareda. The ethical inadequacy of uninformed surrogate consent: advancing respect for persons in clinical research. Correction: On instrumentality and second-order effects: revisiting anti-natalism and animal farming. Correction: Flourishing at the end of life. On instrumentality and second-order effects: revisiting anti-natalism and animal farming.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1