Researcher(s):
Chloe Waterman
ENVS course(s): 400 Initiated: September 2011 Completed: May 2012 Go to project site
|
Humans are in the unique position of being omnivores with a conscience as we have the biological leeway and rational ability to make a choice about meat consumption. Despite the fact that the words of Peter Singer’s normative argument that we ought not eat meat have been ringing in our ears for thirty-five years, most of us continue to eat meat. The discrepancy between the advice of experts and the actions of most indicates that a normative theory may not be enough to motivate change. In response to this worry, I employ a dual methodology that utilizes traditional analytic philosophy to make a normative argument as well as an empirical study that probes into the moral psyches, rational dispositions, and implicit ethical frameworks of actual meat-eaters and vegans. The results are both philosophically interesting and pragmatically valuable. Meat-eating proves a prime place in which to situate broader ethical and metaethical issues like how moral judgment works and the relationships between motivation, reason, and action. The empirical data weave through the normative theory in a way that takes the argument a step further than Singer to enact positive change on behalf of animals.