{"title":"持续的嗅觉缺失症","authors":"Jean Kazez","doi":"10.5840/tpm20219222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"John Stuart Mill famously maintained that “animal pleasures” – like enjoying good smells and tastes – are lower quality than the pleasures tied to higher cognition, like the pleasure of enjoying an opera or understanding a mathematical proof. This downgrading is particularly common in the ethical literature about eating animals. Peter Singer, James Rachels, Gary Francione, Alastair Norcross and dozens of other ethicists make quick work of defending vegetarianism by presuming that “gustatory pleasure” is trivial. But is it?","PeriodicalId":42886,"journal":{"name":"TPM-The Philosophers Magazine","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Persistent Anosmia\",\"authors\":\"Jean Kazez\",\"doi\":\"10.5840/tpm20219222\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"John Stuart Mill famously maintained that “animal pleasures” – like enjoying good smells and tastes – are lower quality than the pleasures tied to higher cognition, like the pleasure of enjoying an opera or understanding a mathematical proof. This downgrading is particularly common in the ethical literature about eating animals. Peter Singer, James Rachels, Gary Francione, Alastair Norcross and dozens of other ethicists make quick work of defending vegetarianism by presuming that “gustatory pleasure” is trivial. But is it?\",\"PeriodicalId\":42886,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"TPM-The Philosophers Magazine\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"TPM-The Philosophers Magazine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5840/tpm20219222\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TPM-The Philosophers Magazine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/tpm20219222","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
约翰·斯图亚特·密尔(John Stuart Mill)有一个著名的观点,他认为“动物的快乐”——比如享受美好的气味和味道——比那些与高级认知相关的快乐(比如欣赏歌剧或理解数学证明的快乐)的质量要低。这种降级在有关食用动物的伦理文献中尤为常见。彼得·辛格、詹姆斯·雷切尔斯、加里·弗朗西奥内、阿拉斯泰尔·诺克罗斯和其他几十位伦理学家迅速为素食主义辩护,他们认为“味觉上的愉悦”微不足道。但这是真的吗?
John Stuart Mill famously maintained that “animal pleasures” – like enjoying good smells and tastes – are lower quality than the pleasures tied to higher cognition, like the pleasure of enjoying an opera or understanding a mathematical proof. This downgrading is particularly common in the ethical literature about eating animals. Peter Singer, James Rachels, Gary Francione, Alastair Norcross and dozens of other ethicists make quick work of defending vegetarianism by presuming that “gustatory pleasure” is trivial. But is it?