Moral Reasons for Individuals in High-Income Countries to Limit Beef Consumption.

Food ethics Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-06-17 DOI:10.1007/s41055-022-00100-8
Anne Barnhill, Justin Bernstein, Ruth Faden, Rebecca McLaren, Travis N Rieder, Jessica Fanzo
{"title":"Moral Reasons for Individuals in High-Income Countries to Limit Beef Consumption.","authors":"Anne Barnhill,&nbsp;Justin Bernstein,&nbsp;Ruth Faden,&nbsp;Rebecca McLaren,&nbsp;Travis N Rieder,&nbsp;Jessica Fanzo","doi":"10.1007/s41055-022-00100-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper argues that individuals in many high-income countries typically have moral reasons to limit their beef consumption and consume plant-based protein instead, given the negative effects of beef production and consumption. Beef production is a significant source of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts, high levels of beef consumption are associated with health risks, and some cattle production systems raise animal welfare concerns. These negative effects matter, from a variety of moral perspectives, and give us collective moral reasons to reduce beef production and consumption. But, as some ethicists have argued, we cannot draw a straight line from the ethics of production to the ethics of consumption: even if a production system is morally impermissible, this does not mean that any given individual has moral reasons to stop consuming the products of that system, given how miniscule one individual's contributions are. This paper considers how to connect those dots. We consider three distinct lines of argument in support of the conclusion that individuals have moral reasons to limit their beef consumption and shift to plant-based protein, and we consider objections to each argument. This argument applies to individuals in high beef-consuming and high greenhouse gas-emitting high-income countries, though we make this argument with a specific focus on the United States.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41055-022-00100-8.</p>","PeriodicalId":73041,"journal":{"name":"Food ethics","volume":" ","pages":"11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9205278/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s41055-022-00100-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/6/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper argues that individuals in many high-income countries typically have moral reasons to limit their beef consumption and consume plant-based protein instead, given the negative effects of beef production and consumption. Beef production is a significant source of agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts, high levels of beef consumption are associated with health risks, and some cattle production systems raise animal welfare concerns. These negative effects matter, from a variety of moral perspectives, and give us collective moral reasons to reduce beef production and consumption. But, as some ethicists have argued, we cannot draw a straight line from the ethics of production to the ethics of consumption: even if a production system is morally impermissible, this does not mean that any given individual has moral reasons to stop consuming the products of that system, given how miniscule one individual's contributions are. This paper considers how to connect those dots. We consider three distinct lines of argument in support of the conclusion that individuals have moral reasons to limit their beef consumption and shift to plant-based protein, and we consider objections to each argument. This argument applies to individuals in high beef-consuming and high greenhouse gas-emitting high-income countries, though we make this argument with a specific focus on the United States.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41055-022-00100-8.

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
高收入国家个人限制牛肉消费的道德原因。
本文认为,考虑到牛肉生产和消费的负面影响,许多高收入国家的个人通常有道德上的理由限制牛肉消费,转而食用植物性蛋白质。牛肉生产是农业温室气体排放和其他环境影响的一个重要来源,高水平的牛肉消费与健康风险有关,一些牛生产系统引起了动物福利问题。从各种道德角度来看,这些负面影响很重要,并为我们提供了减少牛肉生产和消费的集体道德理由。但是,正如一些伦理学家所主张的那样,我们不能从生产伦理到消费伦理划清一条直线:即使一个生产体系在道德上是不允许的,这并不意味着任何给定的个人都有道德理由停止消费该体系的产品,因为一个人的贡献是多么微不足道。本文考虑如何将这些点连接起来。我们考虑了三个不同的论点,以支持个人有道德理由限制牛肉消费并转向植物性蛋白质的结论,我们考虑了对每个论点的反对意见。这一论点适用于高牛肉消费和高温室气体排放的高收入国家的个人,尽管我们特别关注美国。补充资料:在线版本提供补充资料,编号为10.1007/s41055-022-00100-8。
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
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Identity and Culture Based on the Traditional Cuisine of Bello city, Antioquia, Colombia “Dear Dairy, It’s Not Me, It’s You”: Australian Public Attitudes to Dairy Expressed Through Love and Breakup Letters Expert Views on Communicating Genetic Technology Used in Agriculture When Tradition Meets Innovation: A Mixed-Methods Investigation of Factors Influencing Chinese Consumers' Purchase Intentions for Meat Substitutes Are Animals Needed for Food Supply, Efficient Resource Use, and Sustainable Cropping Systems? An Argumentation Analysis Regarding Livestock 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