食物选择中的代理和自主:我们真的可以用叉子投票吗?

J. M. Dieterle
{"title":"食物选择中的代理和自主:我们真的可以用叉子投票吗?","authors":"J. M. Dieterle","doi":"10.1007/s10806-022-09878-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Ethical consumerism is the thesis that we should let our values determine our consumer purchases. We should purchase items that accord with our values and refrain from buying those that do not. The end goal, for ethical consumerism, is to transform the market through consumer demand. The arm of this movement associated with food choice embraces the slogan “Vote with Your Fork!” As in the more general movement, the idea is that we should let our values dictate our choices. In this paper, I offer a critique of the Vote with Your Fork campaign (hereafter VWYF) that focuses on the agency of individuals. For VWYF to be effective, minimally, individuals must act <i>intentionally</i> when making food choices. In the ideal case, individuals adopt and endorse the values implicit in VWYF and exhibit <i>autonomous agency</i> when they purchase and consume food. The problem, though, is that a number of things can go wrong along the way. I argue that very few of us are in the position to exhibit autonomous agency with respect to our food choices. Because of this, VWYF could very well undermine its own goals.</p>","PeriodicalId":501152,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Agency and Autonomy in Food Choice: Can We Really Vote with Our Forks?\",\"authors\":\"J. M. Dieterle\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10806-022-09878-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Ethical consumerism is the thesis that we should let our values determine our consumer purchases. We should purchase items that accord with our values and refrain from buying those that do not. The end goal, for ethical consumerism, is to transform the market through consumer demand. The arm of this movement associated with food choice embraces the slogan “Vote with Your Fork!” As in the more general movement, the idea is that we should let our values dictate our choices. In this paper, I offer a critique of the Vote with Your Fork campaign (hereafter VWYF) that focuses on the agency of individuals. For VWYF to be effective, minimally, individuals must act <i>intentionally</i> when making food choices. In the ideal case, individuals adopt and endorse the values implicit in VWYF and exhibit <i>autonomous agency</i> when they purchase and consume food. The problem, though, is that a number of things can go wrong along the way. I argue that very few of us are in the position to exhibit autonomous agency with respect to our food choices. Because of this, VWYF could very well undermine its own goals.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501152,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-022-09878-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-022-09878-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

伦理消费主义认为我们应该让我们的价值观来决定我们的消费行为。我们应该买符合我们价值观的东西,而不要买不符合我们价值观的东西。道德消费主义的最终目标是通过消费者的需求来改造市场。这场与食物选择有关的运动的一部分口号是“用你的叉子投票!”在更广泛的运动中,我们应该让我们的价值观决定我们的选择。在本文中,我对关注个人代理的“用你的叉子投票”活动(以下简称“VWYF”)进行了批评。为了使VWYF最低限度地有效,个人在选择食物时必须有意识地行动。在理想的情况下,个人在购买和消费食品时采用并认可VWYF中隐含的价值观,并表现出自主能动性。但问题是,在这个过程中,很多事情都可能出错。我认为,我们中很少有人能够在食物选择上表现出自主的能动性。正因为如此,VWYF很可能会破坏自己的目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Agency and Autonomy in Food Choice: Can We Really Vote with Our Forks?

Ethical consumerism is the thesis that we should let our values determine our consumer purchases. We should purchase items that accord with our values and refrain from buying those that do not. The end goal, for ethical consumerism, is to transform the market through consumer demand. The arm of this movement associated with food choice embraces the slogan “Vote with Your Fork!” As in the more general movement, the idea is that we should let our values dictate our choices. In this paper, I offer a critique of the Vote with Your Fork campaign (hereafter VWYF) that focuses on the agency of individuals. For VWYF to be effective, minimally, individuals must act intentionally when making food choices. In the ideal case, individuals adopt and endorse the values implicit in VWYF and exhibit autonomous agency when they purchase and consume food. The problem, though, is that a number of things can go wrong along the way. I argue that very few of us are in the position to exhibit autonomous agency with respect to our food choices. Because of this, VWYF could very well undermine its own goals.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Three Injustices of Adaptation Finance - A Relational Egalitarian Analysis Interspecies Justice within a Normative Sustainable Development Framework–Animal-Friendly Energy Systems as a Test Case Value-Able Valuers: Anthropogenic Climate Change and Expanding Community to the “Radically Other” When Cows Become Heroes: The Construction of Animal Subjectivity and Environmental Sustainability in the Swedish Organic food Sector Correction: Farming non-typical sentient species: ethical framework requires passing a high bar
×
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